I recently saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival.I was eagerly anticipating it's release, being a big fan of Pi and Requiem for a Dream. That being said, this is a hard film to watch. It has beautiful cinematography, an amazing score, and very impressive acting, however, I feel that the advertising on the film has been misleading. This is not a love story, nor is it a science fiction film (although it has elements of both).The true core of the film is a man dealing with the idea of mortality. The fact that he, and everyone, especially the woman he loves, is going to die. This is nothing like Requiem for a Dream or Pi, it has a heavier feel to it, though it is not as depressing. Not everyone will like this movie, in fact, I find it hard to believe that this will get a wide release, as it is not a commercial film. It is an art film, a discussion piece, a beautiful poem about the fragility of life and the idea of forever.
1,062 Reviews
Spiritual and graceful experience filled with beauty and poetry!
thedarkhorizon16 June 2020
Such a beautiful film that goes so, so deep. For me, it was a truly spiritual experience to watch this film again after 8 years. The images are beautiful, unique and the thousands of match cuts connecting the film's inner spiritual layer with the real life of the characters (in a non-linear manner) is just sublime. For me, this is poetry and a beautiful testament to love, pain, life - and the never ending cycle of life.
Beautiful visuals, great acting and great direction
roshanin-8120517 July 2019
There's a lot going for this film. The CGI is exceptional as are the performances. There's beauty in every part from the actors' performances, direction and CGI/visuals.
So why not a higher score? The message of the film isn't ludicrous but it has been explored before many times. Is death a necessary part of life? Can we conquer it? Should we even be trying? It's not a bad set of questions to ask. But as the film develops you're repeatedly pounded on the head by a weak analogy with a tree of life. When you get to the last twenty minutes of the film the analogy becomes actively irritating.
It's definitely worth a watch. Just don't expect anything hugely thought provoking.
So why not a higher score? The message of the film isn't ludicrous but it has been explored before many times. Is death a necessary part of life? Can we conquer it? Should we even be trying? It's not a bad set of questions to ask. But as the film develops you're repeatedly pounded on the head by a weak analogy with a tree of life. When you get to the last twenty minutes of the film the analogy becomes actively irritating.
It's definitely worth a watch. Just don't expect anything hugely thought provoking.
Absolutely Fantastic
mysticwit28 September 2006
Fantastic in every sense. This film is indeed poetry, and a beautiful testament to love and the cycle of life, and the impermanence of death. Wow. The script is tight, and the non-linear presentation works very well. The scene compositions were exquisite. The score enhanced without being overbearing, which is so often the case in contemporary film.
The acting is absolutely superb, but then it's got Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. I can't imagine Brad Pitt doing any sort of justice to this film. Darren Aronofsky lucked out in the long run by getting someone who has the range to portray the vast emotions required for Tomas/Tommy/Tom. Weisz has the depth for regal intrigue and spirited grace. Their chemistry makes their stories even more entrancing.
This film does require a thinking brain to be appreciated.
The acting is absolutely superb, but then it's got Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. I can't imagine Brad Pitt doing any sort of justice to this film. Darren Aronofsky lucked out in the long run by getting someone who has the range to portray the vast emotions required for Tomas/Tommy/Tom. Weisz has the depth for regal intrigue and spirited grace. Their chemistry makes their stories even more entrancing.
This film does require a thinking brain to be appreciated.
A Fascinating Gem
Chrysanthepop2 February 2008
'The Fountain' is one fascinating film. I don't think there's enough words to describe what it's like. After watching the film, I've read several different interpretations and can only conclude that don't make a decision on what you've read, simply watch the film. It's a unique movie-watching experience.
Aronofsky took me by complete surprise. I loved his 'Requiem for a Dream' but I did not expect him to come up with something so different. Man, is that a big difference, not only in content but also in technique and pretty much everything. All I knew beforehand was that the film was a science fiction and that it starred Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz (actors whom I like). After watching it, I can safely say that 'The Fountain' is much more than just a science fiction flick.
I won't mention much of the plot as I do not want to ruin the experience by giving any spoilers. I would love to discuss the film with people who have already seen it. Aronofsky uses of symbolism, colour, and spectacular visuals to tell a story of life, death, love and rebirth. The visuals are simply breathtaking and the special effects are phenomenal. The use of different camera angles is particularly excellent as it gives the viewer (well at least me) the feel of the moving time and space. He cleverly uses lighting and colour to distinguish between the atmosphere of the different times as he does with the zoomlens. And, of course the soundtrack which is very underused but beautifully noticeable.
Hugh Jackman is terrific in a multidimensional character and Rachel Weisz is phenomenal. She's particularly outstanding as she plays her part with a subtle intensity. Ellen Burstyn has a smaller role but she is splendid to watch.
It's really difficult to describe what the experience is like in just a few words. I haven't yet understood every single aspect of 'The Fountain' and am going to be rewatching it, but it does stay in mind long after the end credits have rolled. It's a complex theme but the basis is simple. It won't be liked by many as so many of it is left to interpretation with a lot of questions but for me it's fascinating and is all a movie-watching experience should be.
Aronofsky took me by complete surprise. I loved his 'Requiem for a Dream' but I did not expect him to come up with something so different. Man, is that a big difference, not only in content but also in technique and pretty much everything. All I knew beforehand was that the film was a science fiction and that it starred Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz (actors whom I like). After watching it, I can safely say that 'The Fountain' is much more than just a science fiction flick.
I won't mention much of the plot as I do not want to ruin the experience by giving any spoilers. I would love to discuss the film with people who have already seen it. Aronofsky uses of symbolism, colour, and spectacular visuals to tell a story of life, death, love and rebirth. The visuals are simply breathtaking and the special effects are phenomenal. The use of different camera angles is particularly excellent as it gives the viewer (well at least me) the feel of the moving time and space. He cleverly uses lighting and colour to distinguish between the atmosphere of the different times as he does with the zoomlens. And, of course the soundtrack which is very underused but beautifully noticeable.
Hugh Jackman is terrific in a multidimensional character and Rachel Weisz is phenomenal. She's particularly outstanding as she plays her part with a subtle intensity. Ellen Burstyn has a smaller role but she is splendid to watch.
It's really difficult to describe what the experience is like in just a few words. I haven't yet understood every single aspect of 'The Fountain' and am going to be rewatching it, but it does stay in mind long after the end credits have rolled. It's a complex theme but the basis is simple. It won't be liked by many as so many of it is left to interpretation with a lot of questions but for me it's fascinating and is all a movie-watching experience should be.
Film is an artform and Aronofsky is a Picasso
Flagrant-Baronessa24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
How very sad it is when a great film is spoiled by an ending that simply isn't in-tune. Darren Aronofsky received the Visionary Award 2006 at the Stockholm Film Festival where I watched 'The Fountain', which should serve as a mark of his momentous, earth-shatteringly beautiful visions in breathing life into a universe dependent on the delicate cycle of life and death. It is not until the ending, however, that the film abandons all other components and overdoses on the latter.
But first let me recap the dizzying storyline. The Fountain spans across 1000 years of time, opening in the gritty dark jungles of the Mayan civilization, cutting to present day America and ending in a golden bubble in space (no, really). These three parallel stories are sewn together by Tom's (Hugh Jackman) odyssey to save the woman he loves (Rachel Weisz) from cancer. In many ways, the present-day story is the film's central element and the other dimensions the mere windowdressing, and arguably fantasies from the book Izzi is writing. Nevertheless, the latter are among the most absorbing, especially the grueling trials of the Spanish inquisition in the 1500s.
It is no wonder the aforementioned plot is so whacked-out because Darren Aronofsky means that 'The Fountain' should not be analyzed as a story, but enjoyed as an experience. To facilitate this experience he embellishes with lush iconic stills by the bucketload, often in the form of aerial shots from the ceiling looking down at its characters. There is in this way a dramatic symmetry in the buildings, arches and scenery. You truly just want to snap a picture of each scene, frame it and hang it on your wall. The colours are unspeakably vivid and the vast visions form a world unto itself an indescribable experience that welcomes you into dreamy dimensions and takes and shakes you. My audience sat speechless and tear-eyed.
It is true that The Fountain is mostly cinematography (a kind of 2001), but it is no "vacuous" film. For one, it is emotionally compelling not only owing to its visuals but also its cast. Tom/Tommy/Tomas is a demanding role for Hugh Jackman to inhibit, but he captures the struggle of his character aptly. Rachel Weisz, too, is appropriately emotive and likable in the story. Togethery they have bubbling chemistry that creates mesmerizing magic, although with splashes of melodrama. The latter can best be attributed to the faltering dialogue that sometimes contains more corn than Kellogg's. This shortcoming is however far from a fatal one (since the film is anything but dialogue-driven) and between the meaningful glances, the expert navigation of the parallel dreamworlds and the epic score, The Fountain stays afloat with assured direction.
Until the end, that is. Here the dreaded hubris kicks in and Aronofsky realises he has already gone down all kinds of ambitious paths in the film, and compensates by applying the 'big, bigger, epic' formula. There is, in all fairness, no perfect way to sew The Fountain together because it has been so out there for so long. I will not spoil the ending sequence for you, mostly because all I can remember is a vague blur of explosive golden crescendo. The fine line between poignant and over-the-top corny along which the film has treated throughout suddenly shakes and The Fountain tips over into... simply too much of everything, completely overdosing on furious flair.
In conclusion it must be said that I truly do think that Aronofsky has created something unspeakably beautiful here. The Visionary Award is perfectly earned and cements his position as one of the most interesting new directors. Aronofsky cites Werner Herzog's "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" and Sergio Leone's "Once Upon a Time in America" as key influences for The Fountain and indeed much of the former is present in his film. Watch it and absorb the lush cinematography and explicit emotions don't dissect the story.
7 out of 10
But first let me recap the dizzying storyline. The Fountain spans across 1000 years of time, opening in the gritty dark jungles of the Mayan civilization, cutting to present day America and ending in a golden bubble in space (no, really). These three parallel stories are sewn together by Tom's (Hugh Jackman) odyssey to save the woman he loves (Rachel Weisz) from cancer. In many ways, the present-day story is the film's central element and the other dimensions the mere windowdressing, and arguably fantasies from the book Izzi is writing. Nevertheless, the latter are among the most absorbing, especially the grueling trials of the Spanish inquisition in the 1500s.
It is no wonder the aforementioned plot is so whacked-out because Darren Aronofsky means that 'The Fountain' should not be analyzed as a story, but enjoyed as an experience. To facilitate this experience he embellishes with lush iconic stills by the bucketload, often in the form of aerial shots from the ceiling looking down at its characters. There is in this way a dramatic symmetry in the buildings, arches and scenery. You truly just want to snap a picture of each scene, frame it and hang it on your wall. The colours are unspeakably vivid and the vast visions form a world unto itself an indescribable experience that welcomes you into dreamy dimensions and takes and shakes you. My audience sat speechless and tear-eyed.
It is true that The Fountain is mostly cinematography (a kind of 2001), but it is no "vacuous" film. For one, it is emotionally compelling not only owing to its visuals but also its cast. Tom/Tommy/Tomas is a demanding role for Hugh Jackman to inhibit, but he captures the struggle of his character aptly. Rachel Weisz, too, is appropriately emotive and likable in the story. Togethery they have bubbling chemistry that creates mesmerizing magic, although with splashes of melodrama. The latter can best be attributed to the faltering dialogue that sometimes contains more corn than Kellogg's. This shortcoming is however far from a fatal one (since the film is anything but dialogue-driven) and between the meaningful glances, the expert navigation of the parallel dreamworlds and the epic score, The Fountain stays afloat with assured direction.
Until the end, that is. Here the dreaded hubris kicks in and Aronofsky realises he has already gone down all kinds of ambitious paths in the film, and compensates by applying the 'big, bigger, epic' formula. There is, in all fairness, no perfect way to sew The Fountain together because it has been so out there for so long. I will not spoil the ending sequence for you, mostly because all I can remember is a vague blur of explosive golden crescendo. The fine line between poignant and over-the-top corny along which the film has treated throughout suddenly shakes and The Fountain tips over into... simply too much of everything, completely overdosing on furious flair.
In conclusion it must be said that I truly do think that Aronofsky has created something unspeakably beautiful here. The Visionary Award is perfectly earned and cements his position as one of the most interesting new directors. Aronofsky cites Werner Herzog's "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" and Sergio Leone's "Once Upon a Time in America" as key influences for The Fountain and indeed much of the former is present in his film. Watch it and absorb the lush cinematography and explicit emotions don't dissect the story.
7 out of 10
It's all done except the last chapter. I want you to help me. FINISH IT...
Otto-Maddox22 November 2006
"TheFountain" is a story tackling three different time periods. Tomas (Hugh Jackman) is a 16th century Conquistador on a bloody hunt though a hidden Mayan temple to retrieve sap from the mythical Tree of Life for his queen (Rachel Weisz), who is desperate for immortality. In 2005, Tom (Jackman) is a doctor frenetically searching for the cure to cancer to save the life of his wife Izzi (Weisz), who is in the final throes of her battle with death. Five hundred years later, Tom travels through space on a quest to reach the place of tranquility that Izzi spoke fondly of, using the Tree as a device to get him to the answers he needs to rest his weary mind....
In performances that can only be described as exquisite, Jackman and Weisz assist their director in opening up this knotty story through their soulful and romantic interpretations of desperation and peace. Essentially playing one lost soul, Jackman foams with remarkable anguish as he performs three separate interpretations of duty, handing in career-defining work. Weisz is the face of love in "The Fountain," lending the film a flowering emotional core of the film.
The Fountain" is masterful on so many unique levels, presenting a demanding filmgoing experience that should elicit a grand sense of awe on an emotional and spiritual level unlike anything you've seen this year.
Aronofsky has out done himself again....
In performances that can only be described as exquisite, Jackman and Weisz assist their director in opening up this knotty story through their soulful and romantic interpretations of desperation and peace. Essentially playing one lost soul, Jackman foams with remarkable anguish as he performs three separate interpretations of duty, handing in career-defining work. Weisz is the face of love in "The Fountain," lending the film a flowering emotional core of the film.
The Fountain" is masterful on so many unique levels, presenting a demanding filmgoing experience that should elicit a grand sense of awe on an emotional and spiritual level unlike anything you've seen this year.
Aronofsky has out done himself again....
Death is the road to awe
dallasm-976734 September 2020
A unique film experience - Incomparable to any other film you've seen
Monotreme0220 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As I am writing this review I really don't know where to begin. It reminds me of the feeling I had as I left the theatre after the closing credits rolled on the film absolutely bewildered. I can't even begin to describe the feelings I left the theatre with, but I can safely say that no movie has affected me quite like The Fountain has since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind two years ago (and which is known as my all-time favourite movie). All summaries and attempts to present the plot are futile, because it's truly indescribable. Any summaries you may have read about the plot are null and void truly, don't judge the film by what it sounds like it will be like. It's a movie you must experience for yourself. And what an experience it is.
I find it much simpler to focus on the technical aspects of the film, which are, as expected from director Darren Aronofsky, absolutely incredible. His use of camera angles and movements that repeat themselves throughout the film, such as shots from directly above the action, and extensive use of zoom/dolly outs (an important emulation of the film's message, at least what I perceive it is). The entire colour tone of the film is absolutely gorgeous to observe a beautiful combination of gold and black colours. Much of the lighting is sharp but in a soft gold colour, which creates a really specific atmosphere. Many scenes in the film take place in a hospital-type setting the setting you'd normally see in filmed mediums lit with very bright white lighting. Aronofsky lights these scenes with very specific soft golden lights, which place most of the setting in blackness and create an eerie, melancholy atmosphere.
Both Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz are absolutely phenomenal in their roles, with Weisz particularly standing out, playing her character with what I can only describe as held-back intensity. It's a performance both of subtlety and of passion at the same time. Extra kudos must be given to Ellen Burstyn who delivers an extremely heartwarming and absolutely brilliant supporting performance.
The musical score by Clint Mansell is absolutely, completely and utterly gorgeous. It's minimalist (serves as quite a polar opposite to the profoundness of the film itself) but extremely intense. It is a score that perfectly emulates the feeling, emotions and mood of the film. It's the perfect type of score, and the melody itself is extremely appealing to the ear, with extensive and almost exclusive use of string instruments.
And of course, the special effects (and when they appear, they are quite prominent) are nothing short of amazing. Just amazing. I have nothing more to add, just see it for yourself and be impressed.
But really, one finds it difficult to remove ones mind from the spectacle that is the film. The Fountain is, quite simply, unlike ANY other film I have ever seen. The only movie it even only slightly resembles in terms of vagueness and atmosphere is 2001: A Space Odyssey, although The Fountain is only ever so slightly more down to earth. This isn't to say that it's an imitation of Space Odyssey nor that it has similar things to say, but you do get that feeling while watching The Fountain that you are experiencing something incredibly profound. And profound it is. I never stopped thinking about the film since I saw it last Saturday, and I still don't think that I fully understand everything the film has to offer. But it is absolutely loaded with substance ripe for interpretation. I have recently developed a theory regarding SOME of the themes of the film, but there is still much to decipher. What is important to say is that it is the type of film in which every single shot. Every single editing decision, every single is thought out right down to the last little detail, because it is all these little details that combine to create the broader picture, the profound meaning.
The Fountain isn't "this year's Eternal Sunshine". It isn't the "next Space Odyssey", although I can assure you, if you enjoyed either of these two films (and preferably both), you should find much The Fountain that will appeal to you. It's a movie that many people will not like, perhaps even hate. But I was profoundly affected by it. See it. Decide for yourself. It's definitely one incredible film experience.
I find it much simpler to focus on the technical aspects of the film, which are, as expected from director Darren Aronofsky, absolutely incredible. His use of camera angles and movements that repeat themselves throughout the film, such as shots from directly above the action, and extensive use of zoom/dolly outs (an important emulation of the film's message, at least what I perceive it is). The entire colour tone of the film is absolutely gorgeous to observe a beautiful combination of gold and black colours. Much of the lighting is sharp but in a soft gold colour, which creates a really specific atmosphere. Many scenes in the film take place in a hospital-type setting the setting you'd normally see in filmed mediums lit with very bright white lighting. Aronofsky lights these scenes with very specific soft golden lights, which place most of the setting in blackness and create an eerie, melancholy atmosphere.
Both Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz are absolutely phenomenal in their roles, with Weisz particularly standing out, playing her character with what I can only describe as held-back intensity. It's a performance both of subtlety and of passion at the same time. Extra kudos must be given to Ellen Burstyn who delivers an extremely heartwarming and absolutely brilliant supporting performance.
The musical score by Clint Mansell is absolutely, completely and utterly gorgeous. It's minimalist (serves as quite a polar opposite to the profoundness of the film itself) but extremely intense. It is a score that perfectly emulates the feeling, emotions and mood of the film. It's the perfect type of score, and the melody itself is extremely appealing to the ear, with extensive and almost exclusive use of string instruments.
And of course, the special effects (and when they appear, they are quite prominent) are nothing short of amazing. Just amazing. I have nothing more to add, just see it for yourself and be impressed.
But really, one finds it difficult to remove ones mind from the spectacle that is the film. The Fountain is, quite simply, unlike ANY other film I have ever seen. The only movie it even only slightly resembles in terms of vagueness and atmosphere is 2001: A Space Odyssey, although The Fountain is only ever so slightly more down to earth. This isn't to say that it's an imitation of Space Odyssey nor that it has similar things to say, but you do get that feeling while watching The Fountain that you are experiencing something incredibly profound. And profound it is. I never stopped thinking about the film since I saw it last Saturday, and I still don't think that I fully understand everything the film has to offer. But it is absolutely loaded with substance ripe for interpretation. I have recently developed a theory regarding SOME of the themes of the film, but there is still much to decipher. What is important to say is that it is the type of film in which every single shot. Every single editing decision, every single is thought out right down to the last little detail, because it is all these little details that combine to create the broader picture, the profound meaning.
The Fountain isn't "this year's Eternal Sunshine". It isn't the "next Space Odyssey", although I can assure you, if you enjoyed either of these two films (and preferably both), you should find much The Fountain that will appeal to you. It's a movie that many people will not like, perhaps even hate. But I was profoundly affected by it. See it. Decide for yourself. It's definitely one incredible film experience.
Kubrick-esque
slightlymad2227 February 2019
Continuing my plan to watch every Hugh Jackman movie in order, I come to The Fountain (2006)
Plot In A Paragraph: As a modern-day scientist, Tommy is struggling with mortality, desperately searching for the medical breakthrough that will save the life of his cancer-stricken wife.
This movie is very Kubrick-like, which, given I'm not a fan of Kubrick, probably explains why it does not really work for me. The acting by Jackman and Weisz, is fine, and the visuals are stunning, but it just doesn't work for me.
The movie abruptly jumps between its three timelines, but it is easy enough to know what timeline you are in, just by looking at How much hair Hugh Jackman has. But I actually think there is only one timeline, the modern day one, at least it's the way I viewed it.
Too many blinding lights. Too many transitions for their own sake. Abrupt changes of tone. I believe I have not seen the real film. When a $75 million production goes into turnaround and is made for $35 million, elements get eliminated. When a film telling three stories and spanning thousands of years has a running time of 96 minutes, scenes must have been cut out.
Director Darren Aronofsky initially cast Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in the central leads of Tom and Izzi with a budget of $75 million dollars. During pre-production, Pitt and Aronofsky were having major creative differences, so Pitt left and Blanchett followed. Warner Bros cut the budget to $35 million dollars, both Weisz and Jackman agreed to work on the film at a reduced rate, to ensure the movie went ahead.
Warner Bros. refused to do a director's commentary for the DVD release, so Darren Aronofsky recorded one in his living room and released it on his website. I think I will need to listen to that, as there could be some great insight in there.
The Fountain grossed $10 million at the domestic box office to be the first Hugh Jackman movie to lose money, since he became a star.
Plot In A Paragraph: As a modern-day scientist, Tommy is struggling with mortality, desperately searching for the medical breakthrough that will save the life of his cancer-stricken wife.
This movie is very Kubrick-like, which, given I'm not a fan of Kubrick, probably explains why it does not really work for me. The acting by Jackman and Weisz, is fine, and the visuals are stunning, but it just doesn't work for me.
The movie abruptly jumps between its three timelines, but it is easy enough to know what timeline you are in, just by looking at How much hair Hugh Jackman has. But I actually think there is only one timeline, the modern day one, at least it's the way I viewed it.
Too many blinding lights. Too many transitions for their own sake. Abrupt changes of tone. I believe I have not seen the real film. When a $75 million production goes into turnaround and is made for $35 million, elements get eliminated. When a film telling three stories and spanning thousands of years has a running time of 96 minutes, scenes must have been cut out.
Director Darren Aronofsky initially cast Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in the central leads of Tom and Izzi with a budget of $75 million dollars. During pre-production, Pitt and Aronofsky were having major creative differences, so Pitt left and Blanchett followed. Warner Bros cut the budget to $35 million dollars, both Weisz and Jackman agreed to work on the film at a reduced rate, to ensure the movie went ahead.
Warner Bros. refused to do a director's commentary for the DVD release, so Darren Aronofsky recorded one in his living room and released it on his website. I think I will need to listen to that, as there could be some great insight in there.
The Fountain grossed $10 million at the domestic box office to be the first Hugh Jackman movie to lose money, since he became a star.
happy tree friends
onepotato225 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Here it is... the movie I knew Aronofsky was capable of; after the "Look at me, I'm shaking my camera" singularity of Pi... And after the "starts-in-human-squalor-and-goes-lower" one-note experience of Requiem for a Dream... Aronofsky has contributed a real service to humanity by providing a litmus test for blind-dates. Just drop the name of this piece of overwrought obfuscation into a conversation, and if your new friend gets excited, you can spare yourself an entire evening, at the very least, with a complete poseur.
This is the terrific-looking, crappy movie that every director seemingly has in them after The Cell, Flatliners, Blade Runner, Brazil and everything else by Terry Gilliam, and hundreds of other bad movies. It's been art-directed to death. No such care was tendered on the script which is composed of faux-gravitas interrupted by arty posturing, and outbursts instead of drama. Why does someone devise such original visuals, then stumble over cliché after cliché. It seems impossible that Aronofsky hasn't realized there isn't a great movie that doesn't also work on a crappy 10" black and white TV, with a bent hanger for an antenna. The whole show here is prettiness.
The films features are keyed to the pretensions of a high-school sophomore, but when you're 37 and you present this material with a straight face, you should be deeply embarrassed. This is the kind of movie where everyone is either talking in breathy, serious whispers or they're shouting. It's about as deep as a perfume commercial, which is what it seems to be taking its cue from. (Calvin Klein's 'The Fountain...') If I ever see another character pull their partner into an overflowing tub again, I'm going to track them both down and make them eat soap.
I was completely open to the imagery of the space terrarium. But I was laughing out loud at the conclusion, where Jackman drinks some Ranch dressing from a tree and discovers his inner salad. That's your big conclusion after such a bloated, belabored tease? These muddy 'ideas' are worth about twenty minutes of investigation, or a viewers time. I welcome experimental work, but when it results in material more vapid than a Friday the 13th movie, you're not an artist. If you've compared this movie to Kubrick's 2001, it means you don't understand either of them.
Wow. This is just powerfully bad, self-indulgent, adolescent stuff.
This is the terrific-looking, crappy movie that every director seemingly has in them after The Cell, Flatliners, Blade Runner, Brazil and everything else by Terry Gilliam, and hundreds of other bad movies. It's been art-directed to death. No such care was tendered on the script which is composed of faux-gravitas interrupted by arty posturing, and outbursts instead of drama. Why does someone devise such original visuals, then stumble over cliché after cliché. It seems impossible that Aronofsky hasn't realized there isn't a great movie that doesn't also work on a crappy 10" black and white TV, with a bent hanger for an antenna. The whole show here is prettiness.
The films features are keyed to the pretensions of a high-school sophomore, but when you're 37 and you present this material with a straight face, you should be deeply embarrassed. This is the kind of movie where everyone is either talking in breathy, serious whispers or they're shouting. It's about as deep as a perfume commercial, which is what it seems to be taking its cue from. (Calvin Klein's 'The Fountain...') If I ever see another character pull their partner into an overflowing tub again, I'm going to track them both down and make them eat soap.
I was completely open to the imagery of the space terrarium. But I was laughing out loud at the conclusion, where Jackman drinks some Ranch dressing from a tree and discovers his inner salad. That's your big conclusion after such a bloated, belabored tease? These muddy 'ideas' are worth about twenty minutes of investigation, or a viewers time. I welcome experimental work, but when it results in material more vapid than a Friday the 13th movie, you're not an artist. If you've compared this movie to Kubrick's 2001, it means you don't understand either of them.
Wow. This is just powerfully bad, self-indulgent, adolescent stuff.
Beautiful and probably one of the best movies of the century
lagriff054 October 2007
...and here I shall attempt to review what will one day be a classic in the hopefully near future. The Fountain is many things. It's a touching film. It's not long, though, clocking in at around 80 or 90 minutes, but it does manage to pack in enough emotion to out-do every single lame, candy-assed Hollywood romance ever created, or almost. More movies should cut down their running times like this; because there is not a wasted moment in The Fountain from start to finish, despite the movie still moving at an gregariously slow pace. You won't find any blitzed, seizure-inducing cut-and-paste editing scenes here, and there are no epic explosions and battle scenes either. What you will find, though, is an entire treasure trove of realistic passion and jaw-dropping emotion, and that's the strong point of this movie. Nothing here feels contrived or derivative or fake at all - this is a story of a woman with a lot of love in her heart and a passion for life in general, and a man who would do anything to preserve the same love for all eternity. That's the Fountain.
The Fountain is a simple movie. While at first it's repertoire of lazily abstract images and slow plot construction may seem intimidating and might even turn off the average moviegoer, a deeper voyage into The Fountain's layers reveals something not hard to comprehend at all. I mean, honestly, this film is a love story at it's core, there are no mind-bending plot twists and secret meanings. It's just a passionate, intricately woven romance about how far a man would go to let his love live on forever. If you're looking for super slick plot twists and drama, then look elsewhere, because The Fountain is not your typical modern flick at all. As I said, average moviegoers probably won't be able to get into this one. It's just too abstract and weird, and I won't blame anyone for disliking it on the basis of it's obvious inaccessibility. But regardless, the shimmering majesty of this movie is evident to those who are willing to try and find it. It's clear after the film sinks in - The Fountain is a straightforward and simple film disguised by multiple layers of artistic refinement and glorious imagery. Oh, it's not all clear cut for you, there is one other sticky point for some people - the fact that The Fountain takes place in three different time-spans all at once, weaving them together into a rich, complex tapestry of master-class storytelling. Yet somehow, despite the winding complexity of it all, The Fountain remains a pretty basic story once you get your head around it's eccentricities. Simplicity and complexity go hand in hand here to create a plethora of beauty and sorrow, a perfect oxymoron.
There's a very deep, broad contrast between the beautiful simplicity of the film's plot line and the absolutely jaw-dropping grandeur of the special effects and graphics utilized here. The directing here is through the roof, and the cinematography on display here is probably amongst the five or six best from any movie I've ever seen, if not the very top of the goddamn list. Just watch the last few minutes of the movie, and you'll understand. One of the things I really love about The Fountain is that it's beautiful and touching without trying to be anything it isn't. It's an honest film, and it does everything it wants to do effortlessly and flawlessly, with graceful, sweeping movements that etch a stunning caricature of rich, luscious aesthetics into an otherwise simple story. Marvelous.
The Fountain is a simple movie. While at first it's repertoire of lazily abstract images and slow plot construction may seem intimidating and might even turn off the average moviegoer, a deeper voyage into The Fountain's layers reveals something not hard to comprehend at all. I mean, honestly, this film is a love story at it's core, there are no mind-bending plot twists and secret meanings. It's just a passionate, intricately woven romance about how far a man would go to let his love live on forever. If you're looking for super slick plot twists and drama, then look elsewhere, because The Fountain is not your typical modern flick at all. As I said, average moviegoers probably won't be able to get into this one. It's just too abstract and weird, and I won't blame anyone for disliking it on the basis of it's obvious inaccessibility. But regardless, the shimmering majesty of this movie is evident to those who are willing to try and find it. It's clear after the film sinks in - The Fountain is a straightforward and simple film disguised by multiple layers of artistic refinement and glorious imagery. Oh, it's not all clear cut for you, there is one other sticky point for some people - the fact that The Fountain takes place in three different time-spans all at once, weaving them together into a rich, complex tapestry of master-class storytelling. Yet somehow, despite the winding complexity of it all, The Fountain remains a pretty basic story once you get your head around it's eccentricities. Simplicity and complexity go hand in hand here to create a plethora of beauty and sorrow, a perfect oxymoron.
There's a very deep, broad contrast between the beautiful simplicity of the film's plot line and the absolutely jaw-dropping grandeur of the special effects and graphics utilized here. The directing here is through the roof, and the cinematography on display here is probably amongst the five or six best from any movie I've ever seen, if not the very top of the goddamn list. Just watch the last few minutes of the movie, and you'll understand. One of the things I really love about The Fountain is that it's beautiful and touching without trying to be anything it isn't. It's an honest film, and it does everything it wants to do effortlessly and flawlessly, with graceful, sweeping movements that etch a stunning caricature of rich, luscious aesthetics into an otherwise simple story. Marvelous.
What a frustrating movie!
maxwellmartin5 November 2006
I don't really mind seeing a movie that's just outright bad, but a movie like this, that is so promising and contains so many excellent elements but doesn't pull through in the end, is worse! So much about this movie is great - the "modern day" story is excellently written and acted (mostly acted; Hugh Jackman is phenomenal) and really got me emotionally involved, and the Mayan mythological elements seemed surprisingly uncontrived. But every segment involving "Tom" positively ruins the effect. These sequences are so New Age-y and ridiculous that it totally detaches you from any kind of emotional involvement in the film, and it's really painful how ridiculous they are. It doesn't help that Mogwai lay on the cheeze as thick as it comes with their contributions to the score. To top it all off, the movie absolutely REFUSES to end, so that even though it has a short running time (hardly over an hour and a half), it feels like Aronofsky was actually the one who found the formula for eternal life (and gave it to his movie!). There's a lot of waste here - wasted acting, wasted writing, wasted visuals - because in the end, you will laugh at how ridiculous some of the scenes are, and at how godawful and inconclusive the "ending" is. I really hope that the graphic novel is better, but until then, just go watch Solaris (either version) - it deals with all of these themes much more gracefully and with great subtlety.
Boring and Prententious
marv-367 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Thought the movie was boring, pretentious, and predicable. Many elements of the artsy-fartsy stuff were cliché (for example: the silent walking scene with Tom - until he almost gets hit by a car, the inverted swing around camera-work when Tom rides the horse by/ drives the car by) I couldn't get myself to care for any of the characters: wasn't drawn in to Tom's plight; Tom and Izzy's love for each other just didn't seem to resonate. Somewhere at about the half-point of this movie, I decided that Keanu Reeves (with that slightly confused look of his) would work better than Hugh Jackman.
I hate to say it, but I felt more sadness when the Autobot Jazz was torn in half by Megatron than when Izzy died. I actually wanted Izzy to die as soon as possible because I knew that would indicate that the end of the movie was near.
I couldn't stand the way Aronofsky frames his shots - too claustrophobic - maybe because he was on a small budget and had to tighten down in smallish sets? I thought his tight framing on faces was just totally out of place - that sort of style works better on action heroes - i.e. Bruce Willis in Armageddon.
Just way too artsy-fartsy for me. Don't get me wrong, I like art films. I pretty much swallow up almost anything by Wim Wenders. French films can be slow moving, but they certainly aren't pretentious like this one.
No wonder the big studios pulled-out when they first started filming in Australia in 2002. Aronfosky is a mediocre director who just over-extended himself on this one.
This is one of the worst pieces of crap that I have ever seen.
Sorry if I have upset anyone.
I hate to say it, but I felt more sadness when the Autobot Jazz was torn in half by Megatron than when Izzy died. I actually wanted Izzy to die as soon as possible because I knew that would indicate that the end of the movie was near.
I couldn't stand the way Aronofsky frames his shots - too claustrophobic - maybe because he was on a small budget and had to tighten down in smallish sets? I thought his tight framing on faces was just totally out of place - that sort of style works better on action heroes - i.e. Bruce Willis in Armageddon.
Just way too artsy-fartsy for me. Don't get me wrong, I like art films. I pretty much swallow up almost anything by Wim Wenders. French films can be slow moving, but they certainly aren't pretentious like this one.
No wonder the big studios pulled-out when they first started filming in Australia in 2002. Aronfosky is a mediocre director who just over-extended himself on this one.
This is one of the worst pieces of crap that I have ever seen.
Sorry if I have upset anyone.
Beautiful film about mortality
DanielStephens19888 August 2019
It is essential to let go of needs and allow for something new, something more peaceful, to take its place. The main issue for people is not to advocate any specific worldview or philosophy, but rather to show that death is natural to life and something that everyone has to face. It is when people find some way of reconciling with mortality that they can fully be present and not be too worried about the world around them. Our lives are brief and are at the mercy of forces beyond our control, which can suffocate consciousness and delude people into falsehood.
Can you say "Overwrought"?
Naturalboy17 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I rarely criticize. But I find this piece completely overdone. It's like every shot is intended to promote critics to say "beautiful cinematography" or "so symbolic".
It would be one thing to include visual references once in a while to universe, spheres, continuum, death/rebirth, etc. But truly, I find all this is so overdone it's simply patronizing.
All the shots within symmetrical architecture, the references to circles, all the visual mathematical patterns which try to be symbolic of it's theme, it's like someone designed this just to provide fodder for a dissertation abstract.
This is what's wrong with the New Age: All this effort to be intense, meditative, conceptualizing the spiritual cycle of life/death/growth/rebirth, references to ancient failed religious cultures and civilizations, etc. It all becomes Kitsch (loosely defined these days as an attempt to over-sentimentalize and communicate canned spiritual platitudes through digital quasi-religious imagery in an attempt to be philosophical, profound and intense).
The problem is that this sort of imagery, which is rampant in computer graphics these daze (the lotused guru centered in the explosion of enlightened universal nebulous self/god discovery, etc. etc.) is completely anti-art, anti-emotional, anti-intellectual, not even based in reality of revelation of any kind, just visual pablum, like something you find on a greeting card or CD cover in a scented store in Woodstock, with no genuine human fallibility, funkiness nor truth to any aspect of human reality (nor even spirituality).
True he fails to cure her in time, but his extremely over-acted tearful intensity, the vague crutch-like references to history, religiosity, spirituality, it just all seems so contrived, posed, and for lack of better words, patronizing.
True the skill and presentation is amazing, but this is not new. When craft completely outstrips content, this creates a phenomenon called "slick".
This is a very slick, overwrought attempt at extracting applause for visual brilliance and spiritual profundity, but in the end becomes just a perfectly blended, photo-shopped faux-philosophical platitude, like some poster or card with some deep introspective quote or other from the Dalai Lama, (except no Buddhist could ever be so shallow and predictable).
I find I resent all the Catholic and other religious references, just more effort to add contrived intensity to an already canned theme.
It's also as if the movie can't transcend any of it's points, but just states them over and over and over, attempting to make a hypnotizing mantra-like dream about spirituality, life, death, fragility of life, the continuum, etc. but rather than stating it once, or subtly, it fairly beats you over the head with endless perfectly framed symmetrical shots of every symbolic reference it could muster.
This kind of thing is better done in one image, one frame, a post-card which you are free to toss or file or forward, but not something which you have to watch over and over and over for hour after hour, as if you didn't get it the first time.
This is exactly how you make something which could and should be really deep into something cheap, sentimental and silly. This is how you do Kitsch. I for one cannot accept Kitsch without camp. To take oneself as seriously as this movie attempts to do is nothing but, I hate to say it, bad taste.
Excuse me while I go rinse the stevia and wheat-grass from my teeth, and purge my nostrils of the bad incense and uncrimp my knees from the absurd pose of enlightened philosophical faux-religiosity the imposed lotus-position of contrived spiritual and emotional profundity has self-flagellated me into. So sorry guys, you worked hard, but this is just a bunch of extremely well-done schlock.
It would be one thing to include visual references once in a while to universe, spheres, continuum, death/rebirth, etc. But truly, I find all this is so overdone it's simply patronizing.
All the shots within symmetrical architecture, the references to circles, all the visual mathematical patterns which try to be symbolic of it's theme, it's like someone designed this just to provide fodder for a dissertation abstract.
This is what's wrong with the New Age: All this effort to be intense, meditative, conceptualizing the spiritual cycle of life/death/growth/rebirth, references to ancient failed religious cultures and civilizations, etc. It all becomes Kitsch (loosely defined these days as an attempt to over-sentimentalize and communicate canned spiritual platitudes through digital quasi-religious imagery in an attempt to be philosophical, profound and intense).
The problem is that this sort of imagery, which is rampant in computer graphics these daze (the lotused guru centered in the explosion of enlightened universal nebulous self/god discovery, etc. etc.) is completely anti-art, anti-emotional, anti-intellectual, not even based in reality of revelation of any kind, just visual pablum, like something you find on a greeting card or CD cover in a scented store in Woodstock, with no genuine human fallibility, funkiness nor truth to any aspect of human reality (nor even spirituality).
True he fails to cure her in time, but his extremely over-acted tearful intensity, the vague crutch-like references to history, religiosity, spirituality, it just all seems so contrived, posed, and for lack of better words, patronizing.
True the skill and presentation is amazing, but this is not new. When craft completely outstrips content, this creates a phenomenon called "slick".
This is a very slick, overwrought attempt at extracting applause for visual brilliance and spiritual profundity, but in the end becomes just a perfectly blended, photo-shopped faux-philosophical platitude, like some poster or card with some deep introspective quote or other from the Dalai Lama, (except no Buddhist could ever be so shallow and predictable).
I find I resent all the Catholic and other religious references, just more effort to add contrived intensity to an already canned theme.
It's also as if the movie can't transcend any of it's points, but just states them over and over and over, attempting to make a hypnotizing mantra-like dream about spirituality, life, death, fragility of life, the continuum, etc. but rather than stating it once, or subtly, it fairly beats you over the head with endless perfectly framed symmetrical shots of every symbolic reference it could muster.
This kind of thing is better done in one image, one frame, a post-card which you are free to toss or file or forward, but not something which you have to watch over and over and over for hour after hour, as if you didn't get it the first time.
This is exactly how you make something which could and should be really deep into something cheap, sentimental and silly. This is how you do Kitsch. I for one cannot accept Kitsch without camp. To take oneself as seriously as this movie attempts to do is nothing but, I hate to say it, bad taste.
Excuse me while I go rinse the stevia and wheat-grass from my teeth, and purge my nostrils of the bad incense and uncrimp my knees from the absurd pose of enlightened philosophical faux-religiosity the imposed lotus-position of contrived spiritual and emotional profundity has self-flagellated me into. So sorry guys, you worked hard, but this is just a bunch of extremely well-done schlock.
Beautifully haunting and wonderfully bizarre, but its ambitions weigh it down, along with its clinical and distant approach to the characters
MovieAddict201624 November 2006
Visually stimulating but frustratingly disconnected from its viewers, The Fountain establishes director Darren Aronofsky as one of our most daring and adventurous directors but his ambitions are ultimately what cause The Fountain to sink beneath its own heavy-handed pretensions.
Aronofsky has a way of making the most everyday events thrilling and beautiful, but his clinical approach to the characters of the film portrayed by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz creates a cold distance. A film such as this requires us to invest our emotions in the characters, which is impossible to do when they are so haphazardly presented. While the art sequences are mesmerizing, every time Aronofsky spends time focusing on his characters the movie hits a brick wall and becomes incredibly tiresome.
The fragmented story structure certainly doesn't help much in this regard. While it is no doubt an excuse for some awe-inspiring visual creations, every time Aronofsky cuts to another storyline more distance is drawn between the audience and the characters in the movie.
The plot, if you can follow this, involves a driven doctor (Jackman) trying to develop a cure for death. He claims it is just a disease, like anything else, and that he will be the one to give humans infinite life.
He is not driven by greed his wife (Weisz) is dying of cancer and so he feels obligated to deliver her a cure.
Meanwhile, the film veers off onto two different paths one involving a Spanish conquistador and his quest for the Fountain of Youth, the other about the doctor from the first storyline (I think?) being trapped in a bubble in outer space with a dying tree (which his wife is apart of because it grew from her corpse yes, honestly) and his struggle to umm preserve the tree and himself so they can live together forever.
The film's soundtrack, composed by Clint Mansell (Requiem for a Dream), is perhaps the highlight of the entire picture. Mansell is quickly establishing a name for himself as one of Hollywood's greatest composers.
And certainly the movie will wow audiences looking for something pretty. But it is not a very enjoyable experience, for the most part, and the scenes involving human conflict dragged on seemingly forever.
And so as an art-house picture this is wonderfully bizarre, beautifully haunting and utterly captivating; I just wish Aronofsky had chosen a film that did not require more emotional involvement than he was willing to develop.
Aronofsky has a way of making the most everyday events thrilling and beautiful, but his clinical approach to the characters of the film portrayed by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz creates a cold distance. A film such as this requires us to invest our emotions in the characters, which is impossible to do when they are so haphazardly presented. While the art sequences are mesmerizing, every time Aronofsky spends time focusing on his characters the movie hits a brick wall and becomes incredibly tiresome.
The fragmented story structure certainly doesn't help much in this regard. While it is no doubt an excuse for some awe-inspiring visual creations, every time Aronofsky cuts to another storyline more distance is drawn between the audience and the characters in the movie.
The plot, if you can follow this, involves a driven doctor (Jackman) trying to develop a cure for death. He claims it is just a disease, like anything else, and that he will be the one to give humans infinite life.
He is not driven by greed his wife (Weisz) is dying of cancer and so he feels obligated to deliver her a cure.
Meanwhile, the film veers off onto two different paths one involving a Spanish conquistador and his quest for the Fountain of Youth, the other about the doctor from the first storyline (I think?) being trapped in a bubble in outer space with a dying tree (which his wife is apart of because it grew from her corpse yes, honestly) and his struggle to umm preserve the tree and himself so they can live together forever.
The film's soundtrack, composed by Clint Mansell (Requiem for a Dream), is perhaps the highlight of the entire picture. Mansell is quickly establishing a name for himself as one of Hollywood's greatest composers.
And certainly the movie will wow audiences looking for something pretty. But it is not a very enjoyable experience, for the most part, and the scenes involving human conflict dragged on seemingly forever.
And so as an art-house picture this is wonderfully bizarre, beautifully haunting and utterly captivating; I just wish Aronofsky had chosen a film that did not require more emotional involvement than he was willing to develop.
Death is the Road to Awe
MConley715 October 2007
This is not a film for any one public. Americans, often ignorant of philosophy and mythology (by and large) would stumble awkwardly through much of the film, wondering what the hell is going on. Others still would prefer to call the film pretentious and drenched in metaphysical bull----. Woe it is to the archetypes. No one knows how to reach the elemental, the archetypal arena of human experience anymore; a fact proved by so many other reviewers penchant for searching for the "realism" within the movie. (cf. Roger Ebert's review; this is a thoroughly stupid and ignorant way of viewing such a film...it seems that the Divine Comedy would be cast aside today, because Dante does not describe Paradise in a "realistic" fashion. Which of course is worse than nonsense...its f---ing stupid.)
The problem many people have with this film is that they see it as a story about two people, and not two archetypes that are elemental within human mythology (first man and first woman). It is interesting to note how Jackman becomes Western man (furious and daring, he hopes to reach beyond nature, to become a 'superman,' while not understanding that he is not simply a product of nature but very much a PART of nature) and Weisz becomes the embodiement of Eastern thought (her submission to the truth of nature (death) is not a submission, but an understanding of the tide of life, an understanding Tom, in all his embodiements, does not possess). I see a purity in the representation of first man and first woman, a purity that allows me to see the characters as archetypes that resemble the spiritual forces that have driven us for our eternity.
Ebert said that it is a standard critical practice not to create a fiction that was not implicit within the film; but with a film like The Fountain, there are so many interpretations and meanings...deep thoughts linger in me while I watch, an ocean of experiences that dwells inside me, calm and enveloping. Interpretaions can, in their own rights, be works of art, if what they interpret, in itself, is beautiful. I will not pretend that my interpretation is right, complete, or a work of art; but what I have seen and felt from this film has filled me with something I cannot describe--if the definition was not insufficient, I would call it God--yet so many pass by it with scorn and rolling eyes. I hope some will see in it what I have felt pass through so many times...or at least to understand, at the very least, that just because a movie doesn't touch you, it does not mean that your perception of the movie is, in itself, truth; it is merely an opinion like mine. On art there is no truth, except the pieces we craft ourselves.
The problem many people have with this film is that they see it as a story about two people, and not two archetypes that are elemental within human mythology (first man and first woman). It is interesting to note how Jackman becomes Western man (furious and daring, he hopes to reach beyond nature, to become a 'superman,' while not understanding that he is not simply a product of nature but very much a PART of nature) and Weisz becomes the embodiement of Eastern thought (her submission to the truth of nature (death) is not a submission, but an understanding of the tide of life, an understanding Tom, in all his embodiements, does not possess). I see a purity in the representation of first man and first woman, a purity that allows me to see the characters as archetypes that resemble the spiritual forces that have driven us for our eternity.
Ebert said that it is a standard critical practice not to create a fiction that was not implicit within the film; but with a film like The Fountain, there are so many interpretations and meanings...deep thoughts linger in me while I watch, an ocean of experiences that dwells inside me, calm and enveloping. Interpretaions can, in their own rights, be works of art, if what they interpret, in itself, is beautiful. I will not pretend that my interpretation is right, complete, or a work of art; but what I have seen and felt from this film has filled me with something I cannot describe--if the definition was not insufficient, I would call it God--yet so many pass by it with scorn and rolling eyes. I hope some will see in it what I have felt pass through so many times...or at least to understand, at the very least, that just because a movie doesn't touch you, it does not mean that your perception of the movie is, in itself, truth; it is merely an opinion like mine. On art there is no truth, except the pieces we craft ourselves.
A Stellar Soul-Searching Experience!
topkingdom2013 December 2020
Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain follows the story of a man who seemingly travels across three worlds. One as a conquistador, another as a scientist, and the last one as a monk. The proper plot of The Fountain is perhaps up to interpretation, but it is definitely a film worth watching at least a couple of times. While the multiple-world storyline is not new, Aronofksy's use of it make for a surreal yet beautiful experience of a tale of love, death, meaning, and acceptance.
The Fountain is without a doubt, a very unique film in that its meaning is almost obscure and abstract yet quite concrete. As the film progresses, we can see changes in the characters and more specifically their views on certain subjects, Hugh Jackman's three-roles will also stay in your mind for quite some time after watching the film as The Fountain is another film that shows his remarkable range.
The film itself is a work of art, a narrative-commentary on perhaps the meaning of life and death. It features a somewhat simple, yet very memorable score composed by Clint Mansell which does a fantastic job of alleviating the storyline. From a narrative point of view, The Fountain is a film that you are not meant to be explained to. The film asks you as the viewer to find the meaning yourself.
Furthermore, the cinematography of The Fountain is gorgeous and artistic, it really felt as if every shot carried so much weight and meaning, this accompanied with the three-world-storyline and surreal dialogue do a great job of wrapping up together an unexpectedly joyful and bittersweet experience of a film.
Ultimately, if you want a film that will make you continuously think about its meaning, attach you to delicate yet detailed characters, and also make you question your own worldview, the Fountain is a movie worth watching. Do not let the 2006 release date fool you, for the film itself still holds up to the current day, largely in part because of its complexity and curious storyline.
The Path to Life
LarkWithakay18 October 2006
I had the immense pleasure of viewing this film for its second screening ever, when it was showcased at Chicago's International Film Festival. Fans of Aronofsky who enjoyed the intensity of 'PI' and 'REQUIEM FOR A DREAM' will find that Darren's primary thematic focus has shifted yet again from the mind and gut ('PI' and 'REQUIEM', respectively) to the heart. However, don't take this to mean that 'THE FOUNTAIN' isn't intellectually engaging or visceral in its impact.
In a word, this film is warm. Aronofsky's palette for his third feature is a swirling miasma of golden yellows, and it sets the tone for the work. 'THE FOUNTAIN' is a life-affirming treatise on the eternity of love. Cynical hacks might decry this as a mawkish, facile rumination of saccharine proportions, but despite the sentimental themes, the film is never cloying, opting instead for a (sur)realistic portrayal of the nuances of one of life's most powerful emotions.
The casting was superb: Rachel Weisz and Hugh Jackman are outstanding in their roles, with both offering utterly believable performances. Weisz reveals the same depths she did in 'THE CONSTANT GARDENER', portraying myriad subtleties in a role that could've easily been misplayed, starring as Jackman's love throughout time. For those who've only seen Jackman in action-oriented mutant movies, his command of his character's strengths AND frailties is a welcome surprise. The supporting cast was excellent as well, with Ellen Burstyn standing out in particular.
Special effects were phenomenal, even without taking the film's halved budget into consideration. I won't spoil the surprise, but when you find out how Aronofsky and Co. achieved some of the extraordinary images, you're sure to be impressed (and reminded of a film classic from over 25 years ago). This is not a film to rely on FX, though. In fact, the segment (not scene; the story is split across three time periods) using the bulk of the effects is probably the shortest.
Aronofsky ambitiously tackles heavy themes and concepts and he does it in a little over 90 minutes. I didn't realize how short the film was until it was over. However, 'THE FOUNTAIN's brevity could also be perceived as an extension of one of its themes: learning to appreciate the world and its beauty in whatever time we are allotted.
In a word, this film is warm. Aronofsky's palette for his third feature is a swirling miasma of golden yellows, and it sets the tone for the work. 'THE FOUNTAIN' is a life-affirming treatise on the eternity of love. Cynical hacks might decry this as a mawkish, facile rumination of saccharine proportions, but despite the sentimental themes, the film is never cloying, opting instead for a (sur)realistic portrayal of the nuances of one of life's most powerful emotions.
The casting was superb: Rachel Weisz and Hugh Jackman are outstanding in their roles, with both offering utterly believable performances. Weisz reveals the same depths she did in 'THE CONSTANT GARDENER', portraying myriad subtleties in a role that could've easily been misplayed, starring as Jackman's love throughout time. For those who've only seen Jackman in action-oriented mutant movies, his command of his character's strengths AND frailties is a welcome surprise. The supporting cast was excellent as well, with Ellen Burstyn standing out in particular.
Special effects were phenomenal, even without taking the film's halved budget into consideration. I won't spoil the surprise, but when you find out how Aronofsky and Co. achieved some of the extraordinary images, you're sure to be impressed (and reminded of a film classic from over 25 years ago). This is not a film to rely on FX, though. In fact, the segment (not scene; the story is split across three time periods) using the bulk of the effects is probably the shortest.
Aronofsky ambitiously tackles heavy themes and concepts and he does it in a little over 90 minutes. I didn't realize how short the film was until it was over. However, 'THE FOUNTAIN's brevity could also be perceived as an extension of one of its themes: learning to appreciate the world and its beauty in whatever time we are allotted.
Interesting, musical, arty weirdness!
jasongkgreen6 February 2019
Been meaning to see this for sometime. Heard someone say it was their favourite film recently and wax lyrical about it so though it was time.
I can understand why it is was averagely rated by critics and slated by some humans as tosh, others as amazing. It's several stories intertwined (3 in fact). Visual with effecting music. About love, and the efforts from Hugh Jackman to save his soul mate (Rachel Weisz) from death. It's ethereal and not light hearted, love, illness, death and the tree of life!
I enjoyed it, I am a generous audience. It was interesting and thought provoking in places. I liked the visuals and music. The leads were capable.
Favourite quote: Isabel: For every shadow, no matter how deep, is threatened by morning light.
If you like a slightly trippy, occasional head scratchy, but interesting films. Give it a whirl. If arty, visual, weird concept films, don't float your boat. Pass it by.
I can understand why it is was averagely rated by critics and slated by some humans as tosh, others as amazing. It's several stories intertwined (3 in fact). Visual with effecting music. About love, and the efforts from Hugh Jackman to save his soul mate (Rachel Weisz) from death. It's ethereal and not light hearted, love, illness, death and the tree of life!
I enjoyed it, I am a generous audience. It was interesting and thought provoking in places. I liked the visuals and music. The leads were capable.
Favourite quote: Isabel: For every shadow, no matter how deep, is threatened by morning light.
If you like a slightly trippy, occasional head scratchy, but interesting films. Give it a whirl. If arty, visual, weird concept films, don't float your boat. Pass it by.
Confusing, surreal and pretentious
farthingstorey24 September 2009
I've read, with great interest, the various interpretations and comments on The Fountain and while I appreciate that the film was open to interpretation and probably deserves re-watching to appreciate its finer points, I can't help feeling that it was left so open as to be almost utterly incomprehensible (assuming one was watching it without the synopsis to hand). I persevered in the hope that it would all become clear - it did to some extent but it was such a difficult and baffling experience that I can't say I would want to bother with it ever again. I thought it was pretentious in the extreme. For those of you who got something out of it, I'm pleased otherwise it would have been a complete waste of time, money and talent.
Extraordinary film
forceoftruth4 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I got into a screening by chance a few weeks ago to see a film called The Fountain up here in New York. I was about to see another film while a young woman approach my wife and I about a free screening while I was about to purchase my tickets. Now I have heard that special screenings are common and they happen at random, so we took her up on her offer right away and followed her inside the theater to a screening room. Now considering that the film was free, we were going to take it in stride that it might not be any good and just go along for the experience. Long and behold, the movie started and we were treated to one of the most intelligent and emotional films we have ever seen. Rachel Weisz and Hugh Jackman play eternal lovers who are destine to live in tragedy though their several incarnations over time (Past, Present and Future). Thou these experiences, they are forced to look at the meaning of life and death and if there is a way to prolong their love thou it all. The running theme in the film is about acceptance, wheatear it's trying to live your life to the fullest or to die with dignity and that is more represented in the present day time line of the film where Huge's character is trying to save his wife (Rachel's character) from an inoperable brain tumor. This segment of the film is where the film's emotional bread and butter come from and in my opinion the best part of the whole movie. There is a realistic chemistry between Hugh and Rachel and it carries the far reaching premise of the film with such emotional gravity that you are able to feel their love for each other. Rachel Weisz has always been one of my favorite actors and here she delivers her best performance to date with such passion and such grace that you can literally feel her inside of your heart. She makes her character a real three dimensional person, with real flaws, real fears and real bravery. In any lesser actress's hands, Weisz's role would have been a sad stereotype of a dying woman who is brave in the face of death, in Weisz's powerful hands however, she makes her human and that in my opinion is even more heroic and realistic. Hugh Jackman is extraordinary as well and this performance will prove to everyone that he's among the best actors we have around. In any other lesser actor's hands, Jackman's role would have been the stereotypical man on a mission to save his wife but in Jackman's hands, he give an emotional complex performance of a man who is trying to come to grips with his own fears of loss while watching his wife slowly comes to grips with her own mortality. The climax of the film is set on some kind of spiritual plain where all the stories of the characters come together to give an impression of ever lasting life and renewal.
To make a long review short, it's a great film that my wife and I were completely taken by surprise with and it really had us talking once it was over.
To make a long review short, it's a great film that my wife and I were completely taken by surprise with and it really had us talking once it was over.
Fails to hit the right emotional notes
asayed-6312128 August 2023
Having watched Pi, The Whale and Black Swan, I was curious and intrigued to watch Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain. A movie set in three different centuries centering around a tree of life, was probably a premise that could have only been handled by Aronofsky. But I have to say that I was let down.
While the premise is fascinating, the script lacks any kind of emotional depth. Even though the performances are up to the par, one couldn't feel emotinally connected to the characters. I feel that 1hr36min runtime was an injustice to the film, as a premise like this needs time to be developed.
However I did the production design and visual effects to be marvellous. The set pieces during Tomas' scenes were excellently crafted, that transported you to the medieval era. Also, the sky coloured in golden-hues was breathtaking to say the least.
The film further gets complimented by excellent score, which fits the tone of the film . There is a grand and regal feeling to it, which was perfect for a film like this.
While the premise is fascinating, the script lacks any kind of emotional depth. Even though the performances are up to the par, one couldn't feel emotinally connected to the characters. I feel that 1hr36min runtime was an injustice to the film, as a premise like this needs time to be developed.
However I did the production design and visual effects to be marvellous. The set pieces during Tomas' scenes were excellently crafted, that transported you to the medieval era. Also, the sky coloured in golden-hues was breathtaking to say the least.
The film further gets complimented by excellent score, which fits the tone of the film . There is a grand and regal feeling to it, which was perfect for a film like this.
Love It Or Hate It Movie . I Hated It !
Theo Robertson15 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Last year someone went to the time and bother of burning Darren Aronofsky's THE FOUNTAIN on to a DVD to give to me . There's something very flattering when another human being does something for someone , if only to gauge their opinion . Unfortunately neither my DVD player or PC was able to play the DVD so that my viewing pleasure was scuppered . Luckily THE FOUNTAIN was broadcast on Filmfour tonight so made a point of watching it . With hindsight both my DVD player and PC did me a favour because the film is pretentious uninvolving nonsense
I had seen one of Aronofsky's previous films PI a couple of years back and found it very flawed . That was a film full of striking images but Aronofsky showed himself to be a film maker who sacrificed narrative drive for imagery . THE FOUNTAIN carries on in the same flawed style except it's even worse as it's trying to tell three story threads at once and failing to do any of them justice . What makes this even more unforgivable is that at the heart of the film is a theme of eternal love . A love story doesn't have to mawkish or corny , SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is a great example for instance , but I was never engaged by the on screen events . A medical researcher tries to find a cure for his dying wife . Should have tugged at my heart strings just a little - it didn't
The much hyped cinematography and incidental music didn't do anything for me either . In fact I found them both irritating and intrusive . The silhouette of Thomas blocking out a star scape background did impress me but apart from that Matthew Libatique tries too hard to have an impact upon the audience . Cinematography should be a visual supporting character not the main star . Likewise if you're watching a film and you notice the score you should be thinking " Oh what beautiful music , it really enhances this scene for me " not " For goodness sake will someone please tell that bloke to get off the violin because it sounds like someone scraping their nails down a blackboard "
There is also a philosophical aspect of which you will shape an opinion on THE FOUNTAIN and that is - " Do you want to live forever ? " In my opinion no . Why would anybody want to ? Total eternity full of existentialist angst at the unfairness of life , of having doing things you don't like , of rejection and alienation and watching pretentious drivel masquerading as cinema . Total oblivion for the rest of eternity will suit me fine
I had seen one of Aronofsky's previous films PI a couple of years back and found it very flawed . That was a film full of striking images but Aronofsky showed himself to be a film maker who sacrificed narrative drive for imagery . THE FOUNTAIN carries on in the same flawed style except it's even worse as it's trying to tell three story threads at once and failing to do any of them justice . What makes this even more unforgivable is that at the heart of the film is a theme of eternal love . A love story doesn't have to mawkish or corny , SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is a great example for instance , but I was never engaged by the on screen events . A medical researcher tries to find a cure for his dying wife . Should have tugged at my heart strings just a little - it didn't
The much hyped cinematography and incidental music didn't do anything for me either . In fact I found them both irritating and intrusive . The silhouette of Thomas blocking out a star scape background did impress me but apart from that Matthew Libatique tries too hard to have an impact upon the audience . Cinematography should be a visual supporting character not the main star . Likewise if you're watching a film and you notice the score you should be thinking " Oh what beautiful music , it really enhances this scene for me " not " For goodness sake will someone please tell that bloke to get off the violin because it sounds like someone scraping their nails down a blackboard "
There is also a philosophical aspect of which you will shape an opinion on THE FOUNTAIN and that is - " Do you want to live forever ? " In my opinion no . Why would anybody want to ? Total eternity full of existentialist angst at the unfairness of life , of having doing things you don't like , of rejection and alienation and watching pretentious drivel masquerading as cinema . Total oblivion for the rest of eternity will suit me fine
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
