Evenflow reviews The Fountain

Better shed those assumptions then.

Much of my spiritual belief system (which is unique to me) is rooted in eastern beliefs. Oddly enough, I didn't see this film in that sense, although after your review I can see your viewpoint plain as day.

One more reason to go see this a second time.

Actually, I said in my blurb about the movie that I expected to carry away something different from it the next time I see it. After your review, I think that will definitely be the case now. It also say something to me about the Captain

The whole thing with him levitating before the Aztec priest and being addressed as 'First Father' makes a lot more sense from your review as well.

Definitely gotta hit this one again. Maybe today when I'm done X-mas shopping and the kiddies are still in school. It's not that long of a movie.

Well, that's why they killed version 1.0 at about 1/3rd into the production and Aronofsky went back to thinking and shooting like an indy filmmaker for version 2. Some major studio had already invested big $ then the stopped it or something like that and he had to do with a smaller budget - which is why it doesn't use CGI but that microphotography thingy I'm really psyched to see.

Rather pissed that it starts on January 19th here btw. Geez and that is sure one I won't watch as a crappy screener.

Aronofsky isn't a buddhist or a hindu, is he?

^ He's Jewish.

With you so far. Hated both of those fests.

But this:

Is insulting. Dividing people between only "loved it" or "didn't understand it" is exactly the kind of contemptible, exclusionary hollywood arrogance that deters me from giving shit like this a chance at all. It is possible to understand these exercises in self-indulgent "intellectual" complexity and still not be impressed or even give a shit.

He said "for the average person"

Do you disagree that the average person is a fucking retard?

I disagree that "Hollywood" as a collective entity should be looking down it's nose at the "average person" as the default explanation for why it's more boring and pretentious offerings are less successful.

okaaaaaay.

DAMN STRAIT!

I'd say this movie aims a lot harder at emotional complexity than any sort of intellectual complexity.

Of course, if you go see it, then you can express an opinion that has coherence. Otherwise, you're just bleating in the dark.

I avoid theaters when I can will myself to wait for DVD release. This one might be a rental. Haven't seen Superman Returns yet, either.

If you took my review as an insult to you personally, I apologize, as that was not my intention.

What I meant to say was that the average person in North America has not been exposed to freaky-deaky eastern beliefs like Hinduism and Budhism. So when they see a guy levetating in a Yoga position, they are going to think of those late night new-age infomercials instead of Eastern religions. And then trying to base a movie around that theme is going to confuse the audience even more to the point of them not knowing WTF the movie is about.

I believe the average N. American moviegoers go to movies to be entertained. And this movie was certainly not what I would call entertaining in a traditional sense. A movie is suppose to be an escape from reality and the successful ones will include elements of action, human drama, and a decent story. The more successful ones will throw in a surprise ending or a philisophical question to make the person think about what he or she just saw. I think more and more, Hollywood is losing sight of this, and is throwing together mindless action movies because they think audiences want brainless special effects and wooden acting. But then along comes a franchise like Spiderman, and my faith in movies is again renewed. There was a good example of a movie that every director needs to study just to see how to make an entertaining movie.

The problem with this movie, (The Fountain) IMO, is that it forces the audience member to try and make sense of what is going on in the story from start to finish, coupled with basing it on a theme very few have any idea about. And though some people may enjoy the 1 and a half hour mindfuck, I doubt most people will. This movie has all the signs of being a cult classic, but I doubt it'll be a commercial success. Then again, I don't think the director was thinking about trying to make it one anyways. The movie is what it is, and I would still stand by my assertion that the average moviegoing audience member will not like it. Not because they are dumb, but because of cultural exposure.

(Well, ok, most people are fucking idiots, but I wasn't thinking of anyone here in particular.)

Saw it again today and cemented my ideas on what it was all about. I'll post 'em tomorrow- it's getting late.

Solaris was great, so that's an excellent recommendation to me.

Okay, here's my current take on the movie. I'm going to spoiler tag the whole thing.

I loved this movie, even more the second time. I think I left a small part of my mind in the theater after the first viewing, and I've been chewing on it mentally ever since. I knew I would be seeing it a second time, and I'm glad I did. It seemed a lot more coherent the second time around than the first, especially after I'd had a chance to mentally digest some of what Aronofsky was trying to say.

This flick is going to be 'with me' for a long time.

Crap. I thought this was a dumb chick flick.

Now I have to go see it.

The wife and I just got back from seeing this.

Excellent film. Cerebral. Somewhat confusing, which is okay because it makes you think, and you need a movie like that every so often. Gorgeously photographed.

OK, OK, so I croaked and watched a bad Internet copy

It's quite exquisite. I won't do a full review here because, as I said, very bad copy, but from what I saw it could finally replace 2001 as a filmed meditation. What I did notice was that it seems to be cut in several places, meaning that for full effect some things should simply have been longer. Rather sure that there's a director's cut coming of course. Can't get enough of those microphotography effects.

I really recommend watching this in a movie theater and not on a small screen. Preferably one that's empty besides you and your loved one.

You say that it could've been longer in parts, and I'll agree. But it can't go unappreciated that this film was only 100 minutes or so. That's a bit unheard of in this day and age of directors who can't be asked to shorten their divine vision. I found it's brevity refreshing in this day of three hour 'epics'. And yes, I'm aware that his previous version might have been longer.

I think if he were to make this movie in a linear fashion and not jumble it up like Quentin Tarantino, then the average moviegoer would have not only found this entertaining, but interesting as well. The ones who saw this movie are 'story afficionados' that need/want to see a good story, not 'escapists' who likes to forget all about real life for a couple of hours to escape into the movie. I will admit I am a mixture of both, and The Fountain is definitely a good movie, but as I said, if it were taken in linear fashion, and the 'true' story was that the Conquistador and the Queen were true immortals, and the Queen was dying because she did not have the means to fight off the cancer in the brain, it would have made a far... easily understandable story.

Wow. Gorgeous movie, and I agree with Marso. It will be with me for a long time. I definitely need a while to think it over before watching for the second time.