DVD Review HTF REVIEW: The Fountain (1 Viewer)

[Brett_M]

Watched this last night and liked it a lot. It was moving and visually stunning. I wish I had seen it in the theater. It's not one I'd purchase but I'm glad I saw it. Lyrical in its simple beauty. Check it out.

 

[Aaron Cooke]

I got the HD-DVD/SD even though I don't have an HD player just because it was so cheap. that dvd pacific deal was great. less than $20 and it arrived the weekend before the release date.

 

[Ruslan]

Great flick, fantastic to see something so different!

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Ruslan, I'm guessing that since you edited your post that you figured out what was going on -- but for the record, my copy is definitely anamorphic.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Just finished watching this and... it's my 2nd favourite Aronofsky film, right behind Pi. In fact, I get the feeling that this will grow on me with repeat viewings.

I've been reading through the posts on this thread and it doesn't surprise me that most of the film's $30 million budget was based on preproduction for the original concept. I remember when Aronofsky's name was being bandied about as a candidate for the Batman resurrection project. When Aronofsky was asked what kind of Batman film he would make, he said he wanted to make a $60,000 Batman film (of course, alluding to his budget on Pi).

To be honest, I'd still like to see how that $60,000 Batman film would have turned out.

 

[Michael:M]

From what I have read, here and elsewhere, Aranofsky's vision was of a violent, R-rated Batman. No wierd villains (just regular human criminals), the Batmobile was to be a souped up car, and so forth. Extremely gritty and non-comic-y.

~~~

Watched The Fountain again last night. Definitely one of my all time favorite films, but also one I won't watch tons of times. I don't want to dilute its impact; also, it's frankly one that really impacts my emotions. There's definitely joy and peace and some positive things in the film; but there's also deep sadness, pain, and big questions.

I love the repitition of the imagery; from the extras, the image of Jackman's character going through a dark tunnel to light is deliberate. Also, many of the sets/scenes evoke the feeling of stars in the heavens, despite being in a surgerical ward or home environment.

 

[JohnRice]

I started this movie last night, but it was too late and I was too tired to make it through. I'll start it again from the beginning since it obviously needs some attention to appreciate.

I just wanted to say, it's an interesting fact that a $35 million movie is referred to so many times as "low budget" and "independent". I know the budget was cut and all the ins and outs of the production, but $35 million should still be a fairly expensive movie.

 

[DeeF]

I think you meant "spurred" , not "spurned."

 

[JohnRice]

I gave it another try today and I think it is an excellent movie. A lot of critics need to hang their heads on the lambasting of this one. Richard Roper's shrugging off of it, saying "It's a complete mess" is particularly sad.

If all "bad" movies were this good (say, your average Will Farrell venture) it would be a better world.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I agree (though I really liked Stranger Than Fiction). What I appreciate most about The Fountain is that it aims really, really high. It comes oh-so-close to getting there, too. Don't get me wrong -- I loved it. But it's not perfect and is sometimes a little silly.

But I'd rather see an ambitious failure than a film that aims low and hits its target any day.

It also rewards attention, which I've found often leads to poor reviews; there's no repetition or hammering home of key pieces of information. Of course, that leads to comments like the one the teenage girls shouted as the credits rolled when I saw The Fountain in the theatre:

"Did anyone understand what the hell we just saw?"

Really, I didn't find it obscure or dense or hard to follow at all. Sure, the narrative is fractured and embedded within itself, but it all seems to make sense or at least it seems to play by its own rules and tell you where and why and what it's doing. I'm mystified by people who've watched the film to the end and who still don't understand who the third Tom is or what he's doing in the bubble.

Anyways, a beautiful film. I watched the first ten minutes last night to see how the disc looked and I had goosebumps. I'm going to watch it with some friends really loudly on Sunday night.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I agree that this is a film that requires undivided attention, but rewards that attention in spades. No, it's not perfect, but I'd rather watch a flawed masterpiece than the ever-illusive "perfect" film because it shows its creator as being human.

 

[ThomasTreasure]

Filmmaker Jack Smith once said, "Make perfect art and you will be admired. Make imperfect art and you will be loved."

 

[Chris Moe]

I missed this one in the theaters unfortunately, can't wait to finally check it out on DVD. I have liked Darren Aronofsky other work and I am really curious as to how the special effects turned out in this one.

 

[Aaron Cooke]

On Darren's myspace blog he said that the studio didn't want to pay for a commentary track because they didn't think it would help sales, but that he was going to try and record one and put it up on the web for download so you could listen to it along with the movie. He also suggested writing to criterion and suggesting the fountain as a movie they should release because he has a lot of material he could include as extras for this movie.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I am still thinking about this movie almost a week after watching it. That doesn't happen very often.

 

[JohnRice]

It just figures. I have listened to 2 or 3 commentaries in the 10 years I have had DVD, but now that I really want to listen to one, it isn't there. Every braindead, mindless, obvious flick that comes out has 3 commentaries, but once something could actually use it....

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I just finished watching the DVD with some friends; some had seen it before, some had not. The ones who hadn't seen it wondered how it passed by theatrically without them hearing about it.

This was my second viewing, and my first since I saw it theatrically (aside from the first ten minutes, which I watched the other night to get an idea of how the DVD looked -- let me tell ya, on the 100" screen I'm very pleased with it), and a few things really stood out.

I didn't notice it the first time around, but the payoffs to the stories, particularly to the 1500 story, are foreshadowed early on. That brought a smile to my face.

And boy oh boy, I knew there was repeated imagery, but there is a hell of a lot of almost subliminal repeated imagery -- sometimes when two images are dissolving between each other, a third image sneaks in there for a split second. It's not a flash, it's a really smooth little peek. And in one case that I saw at least twice, it's an image that would be nonsensical if you hadn't seen how the film ended.

And how about the sound design? There are some showy moments, like Tom walking down the busy street while lost in thought, but there are many wonderful tiny moments -- those deep inhalations of breath are almost exhilarating.

I'm still not sure about the ending, or at least one moment in the final sequence that's a little silly. But the ending barrels along at a real breakneck pace, almost like a climactic chase scene in an action movie, and I think that it allows me to forgive the silliness of that one moment while I'm watching it and only be bugged about it after the fact.

But DAMN, what a film.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

...but on the flip side, you could not ask for a much better production documentary.

Regards,

 

[Craig Beam]

Missed it in theaters, but finally watched it last night. Beautiful, hynoptic, haunting... eternally sad and uplifting at the same time. I didn't sleep much last night, and my thoughts this morning keep returning to the film. The last film that had this effect on me was 2002's Solaris remake.

I loved it. I've been Netflixing instead of buying lately, but I will definitely be picking this up.

My God, I can't even imagine Brad Pitt in the lead role. For that matter, I can't imagine the film having twice the budget. It's perfect just the way it is.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Agreed. Blanchett is is pretty phenomenal, but Pitt has never given a performance on par with what Hugh Jackman did here. While a decent actor, I doubt Pitt could have stretched so far so successfully.

A bigger budget would have been...well, a bigger budget. We'd have ended up with a more expansive, but less creative film, I expect. Aronofsky's cost-motivated revision of the script, combined with all the years he had to ruminate on this film, resulted in an astonishingly tight, dense 96 minutes in which every shot has been crafted, thought-out, and made part of the whole.

--Jefferson Morris