The Fountain (2006)

You know, if the poster had a huge fade in with both Hugh Jackman's and Rachel Weisz's faces, it'd be sold. Their looks can sell. The poster to me is kind of cluttered.

How ya doing, buddy?

I'm officially interested. I'll definitely be seeing this.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

>> #25 of XX

That movie poster Simo posted is pretty fucking sweet imo.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thefountain/trailer1/

Woo-hoo, a new trailer!

I was speaking idiomatically.

Wow, I didn't know Aronofsky (spelling) made this movie. I saw Pi and Req and loved both of them. Its cool how he did a sci fi movie now.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I know it's a rather large bump but I figured this was better than making a new thread altogether. Anyway... I went to see this film earlier today and I highly recommend that any fan of Aronofsky fan watch it.

First and foremost, you will be utterly surprised to know that there is only minimal (read: almost no trace of) CGI work in the whole film. Apparently the visuals, which anyone here would be hard-pressed to find better visuals in any film in the past decade, are actually mostly micro-photography of chemical reactions on petri dishes.

The plot itself is pretty straightforward; three parallel storylines spanning over 1000 years about a couple who is on a neverending quest to live forever. I know that it sounds kind of silly at best since it does seem kind of cliché that the core of the film is about a premise as utterly unreachable as eternal life. Needless to say: The whole scope is way out there.

Still, it's a VERY beautiful movie and while all concepts in this film are aimed towards the stars it's rather refreshing to see a director who falls just short of that aim and creates a phenomenal film as opposed to seeing yet another regurgitation of the same immortality feud by a far less skilled director. You should all see this film.

FELIPE NO

And what Encephy-chan failed to mention was the fucking phenomenal score by Clint Mansell, performed by the Kronos Quartet and Mogwai (MOTHERFUCKING MOGWAI). It's amazing.

But yes, the film is great too. Go see it—support great cinema!

Most amazing jew boots

Seconding the score. The music oozes into every corner of the film creating a pretty surreal movie experience.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Watched it on Wednesday and absolutely loved it; the visuals were fantastic, the plot was amazing and the score was mindblowing. But personally I think it's a love it or hate it movie, there's little middle ground. I saw it with my family and out of us 4, only I really liked it and they all hated it.

Spoiler:

Was anyone surprised on how the actual story played out? I really thought it would be more science fiction with the tree of life and quest for immorality over 1000 years when it was simply a fantasy tale with scenes from Izzi's book and Tommy's attempts reflected in them to save her in each time period. Not that the trailer was misleading but I really saw it differently.

Did anyone cry? I was pathetic, the music did it to me.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Yes, the soundtrack adds a definite degree of surrealism. I've been looping it since I got it on Friday night. For those who are interested in getting it, here it is.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Kronos Quartet in anything = Love.

If I conjure up free time whilst floundering and dying during the weeks leading up to finals, I'll try to go see this. It sounds very interesting, as I haven't really watched any movies at the theatre in the last year or so (with very few exceptions).

It gives me an impression akin to "What Dreams May Come", especially since kat said it's something of a 'love-or-hate it' film.

EDIT::
Getting the OST, just because .

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by kat

Did anyone cry? I was pathetic, the music did it to me.

I got choked up when

Spoiler:

She touched his head at the end of the movie and turned into the queen. She then told him to finish it, and he said ok, or something to that effect. That combined with the music got me aswell.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I was part of the rather cultic "Anticipating-The-Fountain" bunch, having followed the project for six years in anticipation, reading every shred of news that surfaced regarding the movie.

Now that it's completed, and I have seen it twice (to confirm my suspicion), I have the say The Fountain dazzles the eye but not the mind.

The perceived response groups are you either love, or hate The Fountain. Whereas the haters hate because they're unwilling to accept something slightly uncoventional (there are far more abstract films), the lovers are tossing around hyperbolic mantras like "The 2001 of our generation!", "...reinvents the sci-fi genre!", or "way ahead of its time!"

2001, and currently (I believe), The New World are ahead of their time. But comparisons between 2001 and The Fountain seems apt, since whereas Kubrick probes the unknown, Aronofsky delivers the answers outright. There's also a severe lack of irony in the film, one that the climax of the Conquistador segment gets major points for, but the rest of the movie lacks. Also, some of the devices seem to come straight out of Screenwriting 101.

This is one of the best looking films of the year - the space sequences continually give me pause, and Clint Mansell's score is, well, a great piece of work. Aronofsky demonstrates full control of the project, from score to set pieces, to acting and is a greater director than he is a writer.

I think I'll stop here. Judging from my last film related post, people don't really like to read. Ambitious as the film is, I'm dismayed the film (and Izzi's novel to counter Tom's single-mindedness view of death) spends all that time developing what kids are trusted to pick up upon the first five minutes of The Lion King.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I look at this movie as an amazing, sort of abstract, love story, and thats about it.

I felt like I was one of the few people walking out of the movie theatre not trying to reach for a deeper meaning.

I just thought the movie was beautiful and at times peaceful. An easy movie to let your brain go on auto, and let the visuals and music take you for a ride.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Room

Ambitious as the film is, I'm dismayed the film (and Izzi's novel to counter Tom's single-mindedness view of death) spends all that time developing what kids are trusted to pick up upon the first five minutes of The Lion King.

Yeah, that was kind of my feeling about it too. But the way I saw it, was that Aronofsky shot toward the farthest cosmos and delivered a star; I'd much rather have that than another version of the same "what does it all mean?" theme.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I went to go see this film earlier today after my classes let out.
Strangely, I was the only one in the theatre. The weather's been bad all day so I suppose that is partly to blame (even at 6:25 when I left there was no one in there except two workers).

Anyway, on to the film.

Adding to what Akira, Encephalon, kat and killmoms have all said, the music was wonderful. But I expected no less from an Aronofsky flick. The scores in Requiem for a Dream and Pi have not only defined perfect ambiance, but in RfaD's case, been used for other things.

As far as the story goes...

Spoiler:

I'm kind of upset about the lack of information concerning the 2500 period. How'd he get there? What's that space bubble thing? Is that the same Tommy or a fictional one, made up by the 2000 Tommy to place in the end of Izzi's book?

My thoughts on the whole shebang:

While sitting through the end, I had to assume that the person I saw on the screen was the Tommy from the year 2000, who used the tree to live as long as he had. The only real thing that separated him from another fictional story (like the 1500 "Tommy") was the ring tattoo. Without that there would have been no anchor between the time periods.

In a nutshell, I left the film thinking that Tommy had planted a seed in Izzi's grave and that later grew into the Tree of Life by means of the original tree's sap. Only this Tree wasn't strong enough to survive because it wasn't the original one, and died before it reached the star.

The 1500 conquistador was fictional, based on information Izzi found about the Mayans. Tommy later finished the story of her Fountain by granting the conquistador one last chance to live forever. And he did, only not as a man but as part of the earth. Much like the story of the Mayan tour guide's father. He became one with the earth, the bird, the tree, and etc.

So in the very end, though we never know how Tommy got there completely, how this tree of Izzi and he were transplanted in a "space bubble", they become one with the universe. Their absolute death was the road to absolute awe.

An absolute togetherness of absolute love?

At least, that's what I think.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Matt

As far as the story goes...

Spoiler:

I'm kind of upset about the lack of information concerning the 2500 period. How'd he get there? What's that space bubble thing? Is that the same Tommy or a fictional one, made up by the 2000 Tommy to place in the end of Izzi's book?

My thoughts on the whole shebang:

While sitting through the end, I had to assume that the person I saw on the screen was the Tommy from the year 2000, who used the tree to live as long as he had. The only real thing that separated him from another fictional story (like the 1500 "Tommy") was the ring tattoo. Without that there would have been no anchor between the time periods.

In a nutshell, I left the film thinking that Tommy had planted a seed in Izzi's grave and that later grew into the Tree of Life by means of the original tree's sap. Only this Tree wasn't strong enough to survive because it wasn't the original one, and died before it reached the star.

The 1500 conquistador was fictional, based on information Izzi found about the Mayans. Tommy later finished the story of her Fountain by granting the conquistador one last chance to live forever. And he did, only not as a man but as part of the earth. Much like the story of the Mayan tour guide's father. He became one with the earth, the bird, the tree, and etc.

So in the very end, though we never know how Tommy got there completely, how this tree of Izzi and he were transplanted in a "space bubble", they become one with the universe. Their absolute death was the road to absolute awe.

An absolute togetherness of absolute love?

At least, that's what I think.

Well this is what I thought about the whole movie

Spoiler:

The only reality of the film is in 2005, with Izzy dying writing her book and Tommy trying to save her with his research. Aronofsky has been quoted in interviews that the 1500 plot line is purely fiction, it's simply the story of The Fountain book and while 2050 is more abstract, I think it is Tommy's soul's journey into accepting Izzy's death. The tree of life in the space bubble and the hallucinations of Izzy telling him to finish it were simply his soul's torment and guilt of everything he felt in 2005, his quest to Xibalba to save the "tree" is a metaphor for Tommy's feverent research to save Izzy. When the tree died near the end, it reflects his own anguish of losing her. I didn't feel that the tree in the space bubble was the tree of life, more than Izzy personified as a tree.

At the end when he goes through Xibalba and when Thomas is killed by the tree of life (what an ironic sentence), it signals his acceptance that Izzy's gone. The planting of the seed at Izzy's grave is just a real reflection of that.

That's how I saw it anyways, for me the movie is more fantastical than science fiction.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Kats view makes alot of sense. The only other thing Id like to add is:

Spoiler:

Him planting the seed at the end was how Izzy would live forever. Its been a few weeks since Ive seen the movie, but I remember her telling him the story of the tour guides father living forever through a tree that grew from his grave. I thought that was what Tommy was doing for Izzy aswell.

I cant remember what he said at the end of the movie though.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by *AkirA*

Kats view makes alot of sense. The only other thing Id like to add is:

Spoiler:

Him planting the seed at the end was how Izzy would live forever. Its been a few weeks since Ive seen the movie, but I remember her telling him the story of the tour guides father living forever through a tree that grew from his grave. I thought that was what Tommy was doing for Izzy aswell.

I cant remember what he said at the end of the movie though.

Spoiler:

Yeah I agree with that, it's sort of his realization of Izzy's spiritual immortality as opposed to her mortal one. I just thought the movie was great how it tied in nature with everything situation.

Curious, has anyone seen it and not liked it?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by kat

Curious, has anyone seen it and not liked it?

Just about everyone, other then people who post on GFF, dont like it. This is the reason we dont see more movies like this being made.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by kat

Well this is what I thought about the whole movie

Spoiler:

The only reality of the film is in 2005, with Izzy dying writing her book and Tommy trying to save her with his research. Aronofsky has been quoted in interviews that the 1500 plot line is purely fiction, it's simply the story of The Fountain book and while 2050 is more abstract, I think it is Tommy's soul's journey into accepting Izzy's death. The tree of life in the space bubble and the hallucinations of Izzy telling him to finish it were simply his soul's torment and guilt of everything he felt in 2005, his quest to Xibalba to save the "tree" is a metaphor for Tommy's feverent research to save Izzy. When the tree died near the end, it reflects his own anguish of losing her. I didn't feel that the tree in the space bubble was the tree of life, more than Izzy personified as a tree.

At the end when he goes through Xibalba and when Thomas is killed by the tree of life (what an ironic sentence), it signals his acceptance that Izzy's gone. The planting of the seed at Izzy's grave is just a real reflection of that.

That's how I saw it anyways, for me the movie is more fantastical than science fiction.

Hm yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Spoiler:

I was thrown off by the trailer when I went to go see the movie. During some parts I was thinking to myself "Why don't they show him eating from the tree and living through different things?"

I blame the PR department more than the film itself on that front.

I'm still wondering about the tree in present day, though.
We saw him operate on monkeys with tumors using the biological substance from the tree, so I'm assuming that the tree was, in fact, real.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Matt

Hm yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Spoiler:

I was thrown off by the trailer when I went to go see the movie. During some parts I was thinking to myself "Why don't they show him eating from the tree and living through different things?"

I blame the PR department more than the film itself on that front.

I'm still wondering about the tree in present day, though.
We saw him operate on monkeys with tumors using the biological substance from the tree, so I'm assuming that the tree was, in fact, real.

Spoiler:

As I understand it, many present day medicines start with some sort of plant substance. In the Amazon and other places with dense fauna, there's a huge diversity of medicinal plant species and scientists are discovering specific chemicals and compounds in these plants which they distill, synthesize and base pharmaceuticals on.

This is way up in the research developmental stages of medicines and Tommy's job was probably that, collecting and researching plants and seeing their effects on subjects (IE: monkey). So it's not really that farfetched that there is, in fact, a "tree of life" in reality, but not in the conventional sense of the word. There is no literal tree that will grant immorality but at best simply stave off death and prolong life. As in the movie, the sample they used cured aging and shrinking tumors and while this is an extreme case, it's pretty grounded in reality.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by *AkirA*

I got choked up when

Spoiler:

She touched his head at the end of the movie and turned into the queen. She then told him to finish it, and he said ok, or something to that effect. That combined with the music got me aswell.

Must agree to that scene. I had emotions filling, no tears, up until that part. Even throughout

Spoiler:

Izzi's death

I was trying really hard not to.

My point of view can be taken a few ways.

Spoiler:

One is that the three time periods are reality, Tom is reincarnated (as seen by his numerous added on tattoos in the future), and in every life he fails to save his wife or find the tree. He must learn to accept, and when he does, the cycle seemingly stops and he changes the "future". For instance, the scene when Izzi asks him repeatedly to come walk with her in the snow. In the last scene, he finally does. Are there two parallel universes? Another instance, in the future, he sees a visionary of her and he finally "let's go" and dies in grace (by dissolving).

Another I see is similar to kat's logic. It's the present, and the past is made up by Izzi. Only the present is real. The future, I also think is moreso grounded in reality (by the tattoos). The tree is a symbol of Izzi. But what I don't get is why he eats the bark.

I've got to get my hands on the soundtrack now. I really enjoyed the movie. A lot of people who came to see it with me didn't enjoy it as much and didn't even want to bother to talk about it. I'm just glad I went to see it when I could. I think this is Hugh Jackman's best work.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I believe the soundtracks floating around the music exposure thread. I think Encephalon loaded it up. I got mine off of mininova, so I dont know exactly where it would be in that thread.

The soundtrack is absolutely amazing by the way.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Dee

Must agree to that scene. I had emotions filling, no tears, up until that part. Even throughout

Spoiler:

Izzi's death

I was trying really hard not to.

My point of view can be taken a few ways.

Spoiler:

One is that the three time periods are reality, Tom is reincarnated (as seen by his numerous added on tattoos in the future), and in every life he fails to save his wife or find the tree. He must learn to accept, and when he does, the cycle seemingly stops and he changes the "future". For instance, the scene when Izzi asks him repeatedly to come walk with her in the snow. In the last scene, he finally does. Are there two parallel universes? Another instance, in the future, he sees a visionary of her and he finally "let's go" and dies in grace (by dissolving).

Another I see is similar to kat's logic. It's the present, and the past is made up by Izzi. Only the present is real. The future, I also think is moreso grounded in reality (by the tattoos). The tree is a symbol of Izzi. But what I don't get is why he eats the bark.

I've got to get my hands on the soundtrack now. I really enjoyed the movie. A lot of people who came to see it with me didn't enjoy it as much and didn't even want to bother to talk about it. I'm just glad I went to see it when I could. I think this is Hugh Jackman's best work.

As far as the OST goes, look a few posts up. Enceph links it.

As far as your ideas go...

Spoiler:

The past is fictional. It always has been, and there's no denying it once you see that it was Izzi's book all along.

The "future Tom's" tattoos I viewed as signifying his age. It reminded me of those age rings that trees have, and I'm thinking that the designs around them were significant in other ways.

If you want to view that reality as having really happened, then there's the possiblity that he's been hanging on to her death for the 600 or whatever years that it's been. He keeps replaying the moments back in his mind now that he and Izzi are headed towards Xibalba. Like I mentioned a few posts back, the tree could be the one that Tom planted in Izzi's grave using a seed from the Tree of Life. That seed then created a second tree, and Tom's been using it to keep on living until he can take her to the nebula to be reborn like in the Mayan mythology.

Otherwise you can view it all as a metaphor and their trip to Xibalba to be reborn was just Tom's being coming to terms with the death. Maybe he died then as well; maybe only in death could he be reborn and start a new life.

The final moments with the conquistador, where Future Tom is seen floating in that pose (what's it called?) was either him finishing the book in the present, with his soul's determination represented by Future Tom; or him finally finishing the book hundreds of years after Izzi's death.

One thing that took me by surprise and I forgot to mention before:

Spoiler:

The part where the conquistador drank the sap and started to sprout leaves. Did anyone else see that coming?

I've been trying to figure out if it meant something besides the obvious reference to the tour guide's father becoming a tree after dying.

There's nowhere I can't reach.