DVD Review HTF REVIEW: The Fountain (1 Viewer)

[Ken_McAlinden]

In the interest of fairness, I do not believe that Jackman had ever given a film performance on par with what he did here, either.

Regards,

 

[Chuck Mayer]

No, Jackman hadn't. But I still agree that Pitt would have been good where Jackman was great. Jefferson, the score is the best I've heard in, I don't know, years and years Just an amazing counterpoint to the imagery.

As for the budget, I am just glad the film got made. Glad it got the cast it did, and glad DA spent all those years refining it. What popped out was a work of art.

 

[JohnRice]

As much as I admire Blanchett, I have to wonder how different the film would have been with her. She has such a powerful presence, how would it have compared to the loveable vulnerability of Weisz.

In response to some of the other recent comments.

I think I know which is the "silly" scene and I keep thinking it through, but I can't completely come up with anything to make it work, at least not as much as I think it should have.

Regarding the climax, it is a real accomplishment to have three different story lines 1,000 years apart come together simultaneously, the, as far as I'm concerned, bring out the real point of it all in the final few seconds.

Regarding Solaris, it kept occurring to me how similar the two films are. More the Soderbergh than the Tarkovsky, but the entire feel of The Fountain is very similar to Tarkovsky. Of course, a lot of people could barely contain their disdain for Solaris too.

I think what most people dislike is that this is not so much a conventional bit of storytelling as a loose sketch of a rather abstract concept. The mixture of Old Testament, Buddhism and Pagan beliefs, and probably the very inclusion of such strong religious themes is probably just not something a lot of critics want to praise.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Absolutely. The best films are born out of their limitations -- just look at how much better Apocalypse Now was because of their concerns over running time and how it would be received.

 

[JohnRice]

Of course, an interesting note is the name Arnon Milchan in the credits, who has been attached to many of the greatest production nightmares of all time, many of which also somehow turned out to be great films. Is the guy the kiss of death, a miracle worker, or just always attached to troubled pictures? Brazil, Blade Runner, Once Upon a Time in America. I'm sure there are others.

 

[JohnRice]

Also, it's interesting I never considered the scene Aaron indicated as being silly. I just wasn't sure I completely understood it. I assumed it was...when Tomas becomes "immortal."

 

[Colton]

It was too artsy-fartsy for me. Couldn't finish it.

 

[Craig Beam]

Hey, thanks for injecting that bit o'negativity into the conversation. Apparently you couldn't make it to the bathroom in time, so you went ahead and took a crap right here in this thread.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

That post was not really a thread crap. Let's play nice.

Regards,

 

[Etrigan]

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.

Just for the record, that wonderful moment where Tom is walking around lost in thought is a ripoff (though I am sure Darren would have mentioned it in the commentary) from Kurosawa's IKIRU. Strange nobody had mentioned it yet.

 

[Craig Beam]

A group of people are discussing a film that they enjoyed. Somebody bursts in with the sole purpose of deflating the others' enthusiasm and rudely dismisses the film, contributing nothing but negativitity to an otherwise stimulating discussion. Tell me how this ISN'T a thread crap...?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

It isn't a thread crap.

It was a dissenting, but, I suspect, completely genuine opinion in a review and discussion thread. He did not dismiss the views or opinions of anyone who posted prior to himself as being less valid than his own, so I say let the discussion continue. He was certainly treated with much more rudeness than I detected in his post. Heck, how do you know he even read the rest of the thread and was not just responding to the initial review?

Regards,

 

[Craig Beam]

I don't, Ken (how would I?). But what difference would it make? Whether he read just the review or the entire thread, he still didn't even bother to watch the whole thing! I'd argue that his opinion IS less valid than mine (or yours, or anyone else who actually finished it), and he really has no business posting his thoughts on it one way or the other IF HE HASNT EVEN SEEN THE ENTIRE FILM. I certainly don't mind debating a film's merits with dissenters, but my opponents have to watch the movie first! Colton, go watch the rest of the movie and then come back.

 

[TheLongshot]

My impression is that this thread is primarily for the discussion of the DVD and its contents. Discussion of the film itself should be carried on in the thread in the Movies forum. The poster in question had nothing to add about the DVD itself.

Course, people seem to violate that all the time in this forum.

Jason

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Since the film itself is part of the contents of the DVD, I do not see how that would be off topic. Being the person who started the thread with a review that commented on both the film and the DVD presentation, I feel comfortable with that position. Now if someone would please post a positive or negative comment about the film or the DVD contents, we could get this train back on the tracks...

addendum: Right on cue, Seth!

Regards,

 

[Seth Paxton]

I immediately equated Soderbergh's tighter, quicker abstract love-story version of Solaris with DA's Fountain. I'm sure there are people that hated one but loved the other, but I wouldn't be able to understand why. To me both are wonderful - subdued tones applied to amazing flights of fancy.

The casual audiences sees those imaginations and effects and goes into "rock my world SF experience" mode and of course neither film is headed that way, so they turn on it for being "weird" despite pretty obvious plotlines (IMO). It might be fantastical or allegorical, but the connections are rather spelled out in both cases.

 

[Joe D]

Loved this in the theater and I watched it again on DVD and I still love it.

I thought the movie was easy to follow the first time around and the second time it was very easy to follow. Everything is laid out wonderfully.

And the MUSIC, ahh, what a great score.

 

[mike caronia]

Did a blind buy on this and absolutley loved it.
Perfectly cast, there's no way I could even imagine Brad Pitt being in this movie after seeing the job Hugh Jackman did.
Watched a bit of the documentary on the disc as well, quite enjoyable background material.
But it would be doubly great as a Criterion...

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Ah. Most people found that particular "silly" moment to be more puzzling than anything else. I thought the silly moment might have been...
Either Tom assuming the lotus position in reversed footage as he floats upward, which looks a bit odd and provoked a titter or two in one of the theatrical showings I went to; or perhaps when he gets his clothes blasted off by the supernova...shades of Shaolin Soccer! Neither moment made me laugh, though I understand how some might.

As you pointed out, Aaron, I think the moment you were referring to is definitely there to emphasize the symmetry of the story - Tom, in essence, is the first father, and his sacrifice at the very end of the film is precisely the creation myth that Izzy describes much earlier.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Felix Martinez]

Great movie; another of WB's recent shoddy compression jobs.