|
Directed by: Darren Aronofsky Starring: Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz The Fountain is Darren Aronofsky's first film since Requiem for a Dream, a film about drug abuse, which, for the most part, was absolutely incredible. The Fountain displays Aronofsky's directorial talents with excellent editing and some cinematography that leaves the audience awestruck in its beauty. The acting is also worth mention, as both Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz perform their roles exceptionally well, conveying emotions that allow the audience to feel everything they're feeling. Everything else, however, is pretty much poo poo-tacular. The Fountain is supposed to tell three parallel stories and show a love story that spans thousands of years. The first story is Hugh Jackman as a Spanish conquistador named Tomas, who works for Queen Isabel in order to find the Tree of Life, which would allow the two of them to live forever. The second story is Hugh Jackman as a neurosurgeon and researcher looking for a cure to brain tumors (or if possible, death), which would allow his wife, Izzie, to continue living. The third story is Hugh Jackman as Buddha in a bubble that floats through space. He's bald and barefoot and spends most of his time having flashbacks about Izzie, while he continues to eat from the dieing Tree of Life. So, how are those three stories tied? Well, they aren't. There are some parallels between the first two stories, but the characters are entirely independent and they share very little in common bedies the fact that it's Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz in both. The third story has absolutely nothing to do with the entire loving movie. We are never told exactly who he's supposed to be, how he got in the bubble, why the Tree of Life is dieing, and why he is constantly plagued by his past, if it's even his past. He just kind of floats around, and eventually something happens that supposed to be deep and metaphorical, but it really just doesn't make any goddamn sense at all. The film is supposed to be spiritual and have a deeper meaning that allows the audience to look at death and immortality from a different perspective. There's a huge theme of "death as rebirth" or "sacrificing one life for another", but these themes really don't fit in with the actual plot. Throughout the second story, Izzie is writing a manuscript aptly titled "The Fountain", and apparently, she's writing the plot of the first story, but doesn't finish it. Again, we have no idea why she's writing it or what it means, but I guess that's not important. Lastly, the climax of the film doesn't tie anything together and just reiterates that already obvious themes of death and rebirth. Oh, and Spanish Hugh Jackman comes to an end that's supposed to be tragic, but it just comes off as stupid. He finds the Tree of Life, drinks its sap, and then flowers and plants sprout all over his body and consume him. And this end just eliminates any possibility that Hugh Jackman 1 = Hugh Jackman 2 = Floating Hugh Jackman, leaving the audience even more confused. In short, this is a well-filmed cinema with some interesting ideas and whatnot, but it is incredibly poorly executed and honestly, not worth the time or money. RATING: 1.5 PROS: Excellent cinematography, good acting, vaguely intriguing story. CONS: A disturbing lack of cohesiveness, oodles of forced scenes, and Hugh Jackman crying in a bubble while floating through space. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2006 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
I don't want to gush about this movie so much right now. I'll edit this later for an actual review, but this response is simply to tell Aggro that the last shot of the movie displays Hugh Jackman putting a remnant of the Tree of Life (which he used for his research on Donovan) on her grave. In the future, the Tree that he is eating from and preventing death from is his wife. Remember the story she told him about the Tree of Life, and one's body coming to life as a tree? That was her, emerged as a tree because of that action. We assume that in 2500, technology has allowed access to the universe; etc. the nebula that his wife talked about. He was taking "her" there in order to be reborn (remember her other related story, about Mayans believing in dying stars as the source of rebirth) with his wife (which would ultimately have them live forever), as the nebula was about to explode.
Brodeurs Nanny fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Nov 24, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2006 04:15
|
|
|
I found this movie incredibly emotional and intense. If I think about it very hard, I can't put the pieces together, especially since I thought from the trailer that all three Hughs would be the same person, but like the OP says that can't be because the first guy dies (?) or at least turns into shrubbery in Guatemala. As for the 2500 story line, I found it understandable. The bald guy wants to take his wife (the tree) into the Mayan nebula to die & be reborn together.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2006 04:20
|
|
|
not a review
Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Nov 30, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2006 07:51
|
|
|
I liked it, if anything for trying to be something more than the average movie out there these days. The only part that really got me was meditation-stanced Jackman floating towards star inside Xibalba, and then appearing floating in front of the Mayan tree guard in a very 2001: Space Odyssey moment. Clint Mansell, as usualy, delivers very well with this soundtrack. Save some moments which (were really not his fault) the star explosion inside the nebula, this OST is excellent. My take was that in dying and turning into shrubs, the Conquistador becomes part of the Tree. Later, Jackman plants a seed of the Tree on his wife's grave. That is how they essentially live forever together, until the star explodes when they get to the nebula and bring on new life. I'm not sure how present-day Jackman comes around though. Science fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Nov 26, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2006 22:50
|
|
|
Jonsi posted:My take was that in dying and turning into shrubs, the Conquistador becomes part of the Tree. Later, Jackman plants a seed of the Tree on his wife's grave. That is how they essentially live forever together, until the star explodes when they get to the nebula and bring on new life. I'm not sure how present-day Jackman comes around though. This part confused me. She gave him the seed when he decided to take a walk with her rather than go to surgery. Why would she have the seed, anyhow? I thought the pacing was excellent, the edits getting gradually faster toward the center of the movie reflected the circularity present in all the story lines. None of the three stories were developed well enough in light of the other two. It was a generally coherent vision, just not cohesive. I imagine after the re-write a lot of that interconnection was cut down for time and budget. Goodnight fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Nov 27, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2006 07:02
|
|
|
not a review
Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Nov 30, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2006 22:38
|
|
|
I absolutely loved this movie and I pretty much understood it (at least in my opinion...which is all that should really matter to me I guess), but one thing I still can't connect is the ring. Can someone try and explain to me the significance of him losing his wedding ring? I forget when or if he gets it back. I need to see it again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2006 02:50
|
|
|
lauratiny posted:I absolutely loved this movie and I pretty much understood it (at least in my opinion...which is all that should really matter to me I guess), but one thing I still can't connect is the ring. Can someone try and explain to me the significance of him losing his wedding ring? I forget when or if he gets it back. I need to see it again. To me it means he was losing sight of enjoying the precious short time he had with her and focused too much on trying to find a way to make them be together forever. Another way of saying it is the ring represents the cycle of life, and losing it represents his focus on destroying it by living forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2006 04:01
|
|
|
not a review!
Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Nov 30, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2006 04:44
|
|
|
I thought this movie was completely beautiful, in every way a film can be. Visually and emotionally, it just floored me. I rate it a 4.5 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2006 06:27
|
|
|
Deeply flawed, but magnificently imaginative, the good far more than fully makes up for the bad. One of my new favorite films, rated 4.5/5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2006 19:28
|
|
|
Not quite what I expected from the previews Especially with the Conquistador being an unrelated story/entity. A very emotional movie, and seeing Hugh Jackman cry is heartbreaking. Most people are willing to forgive its flaws - heck, nearly all of the positive reviews at Rottentomatoes agree that it's flawed - but I can't in good conscience give this anything above a 4.0 rating no matter how beautiful the movie. It just lacks cohesiveness overall and is probably a bit too inwardly philosophical for its own good. However, it does make you think. My theory about the end is that Hugh Jackman's character realizes after his wife-tree dies that they CAN still be together, because the entire quest was not about prolonging life eternally as he had thought (and achieved) but that death IS eternal life. By giving himself up to the dying star and dying himself, he'd once again be united with his wife. Personally, I think the story I had in my head when I saw the previews would have been better: Conquistador fights his way into the jungle, finds the tree of life, drinks of it, and arrives home to find his queen already dead. He lives five hundred years more before finding his "queen" again (reincarnated perhaps), only to lose her a second time. The sad cycle repeats yet again in a future setting. Rating: 4.0 out of 5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2006 00:58
|
|
|
not a
Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Nov 30, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2006 07:18
|
|
|
review
Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Nov 30, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2006 15:12
|
|
|
I saw this about a week ago. And it was really, really intense for me. I do not cry in movies. EVER. I'm an emotional brick wall. Most likely due to the pretty direct parallels between Hugh as the neurosurgeon and myself, but Darren-loving-Aronofsky got me to cry in this movie. I thought the story telling was wonderful. While I wish more time was spent with the conquistador and less with the neurosurgeon, I couldn't wait for the movie to expound on the story-line. The visuals were absolutely stunning. The connections made were awesome. Every "point" in the story had several different meanings that I could ponder. The ending, bringing everything together like that, rocked my loving socks. I give this movie a 5/5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2006 10:38
|
|
|
Realized that I didn't write a review. Sorry for wasting space. There's discussion over in Cinema Discusso.
Danhenge fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Dec 4, 2006 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2006 04:41
|
|
|
Edit: Nevermind In my opinion, Aronofsky could have clarified on the parallels. The movie seems to lose focus when the parallels cross, such as coming Tom coming out of the conquistador story and into the neurosurgeon story, then going to the nebula tree story with no segue; sometimes with different versions of characters replacing parallel characters, then reverting back to the original characters. Going into the conquistador story after Izzi gives Tom her book is relatively easy to navigate through since it is basically announced by Tom's "biblio-visual" and well, since you are informed that the Conquistador story is just a story. At first glance, it may seem confusing unless you take a minute away from the movie to think about it or to be told what the gently caress. All of the plots are solid and could stand on their own, especially the Conquistador story. I expected Aronofsky signatures from his older movies and wasn't disappointed. One of my favorites is the explicitly amplified sound effects during Tom's walk through the city and tattoo prep. Kind of nice and fun to feel like you know the director. IMDB says CGI usage was minimal due to the budget and artistic reasons. I must say, the film is BEAUTIFUL. Pros: Good story Cons: Bad storytelling 4 Oprah Moment fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jan 5, 2007 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2006 08:37
|
|
|
I agree with those who said the movie has no truely cohesive plot. The whole movie is just trying to drill into you head that you should not be afraid of death and live your life to the fullest. I think this movie would be more compelling with a message that actually challenges someone's beliefs, instead of a message everyone already believes in, or more focus on the story and less on the message. The acting was decent. Izzy was never fleshed out beyond 'dying woman who has decided to enjoy life and not fear death'. Tom's change felt unnatural, and not what someone floating in a bubble for thousands of years would do. I personally think this whole movie is just a tech demo for the awesome special effects in the future scenes. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2006 20:41
|
|
|
0/5 shwinnebego fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Jan 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2006 04:38
|
|
|
I always figured that the surgeon from 2006 was the same man in 2500. He gave himself the tree of life and therefore was able to life until 2500. Yet, the friend I saw it with is convinced that the 3rd story is the man's disembodied conscious. Which makes sense on a philosophical level and I think that is was the subtext of who the man is, but he does actually exist. I think it is a film that didn't explain everything and left it for the audience to decided. The director covered the film in circles, which represent completion. In my opinion, that is why he wasn't able to find the ring until the end. Also, look at the colors used. The man was always chasing after gold - be it actual gold or something cast in a golden light. Yet, his wife was always surrounded in pure white. Anything that was cast in white was the actual answer to eternal life. LOVE!!!!!!!!! Blech. The film is directed perfectly and shot perfectly, I think the story was a mess. Also, I personally think it was stupid to have her writing the story of what happened in the 1500s . It was a silly plot device. I came out of with film with the basic theme that Death is eternal life because we return to nature and give life to other things and out spirits live on in the ones we love. Hippie Crap. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2006 19:21
|
|
|
I think this is one of those films that is really divisive - either you'll love it or hate it. A lot of your response is unfortunately going to be based on your expectations. As someone in the thread in CD said, the trailers for this movie show some sci-fi thing about eternal love and time travel and a guy that finds the fountain of life in 1500 and then lives until 2500 and travels around space in a bubble. This is basically not at all true, and worse yet, it creates an expectation for this movie to be some kind of sci-fi or fantasy epic. It ain't. It is, first and foremost, an emotional trip, not plot-driven time travel hijinks. It is 100% about death. Yes, death - and it's handled beautifully, sensitively, and maturely. The visual effects are not CG and they are stunning - if Aronofksy was going for a 'timeless' visual element, he's got it. Hugh Jackman submits the best performance of his career so far. As someone who previously held the Dr. Cox view on Jackman, I came away from this film hoping he A.) at least gets an Oscar nomination if not an award, B.) is offered more serious, lead roles like this - it's obvious he can handle them perfectly. The Fountain has gotten some criticism for being needlessly recondite, but I don't think this is the case at all. Any intelligent viewer can put together the plot for themselves - in fact by leaving all the obvious plot explication out of the script, the movie becomes more intuitive, more real, and certainly more streamlined. The short runtime is really incredible, considering how epic the themes are - but it makes the movie more powerful. Each frame is exactly what and where it should be. I know this review probably sounds gushing, but I really think this is one of the best films that's been released in my lifetime. If you know Neutral Milk Hotel, then I will say that, at least for me, the Fountain was to film what In The Aeroplane Over the Sea was to music. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2006 18:01
|
|
|
Just got back from seeing it after hearing about it and wanting to see it for about four years. I can't believe I'm saying this, but it exceeded every expectation I had for it. This is an absolutely beautiful and emotional film. Clint Mansell is the god of film scores. I don't understand how it could have been given a 50% on rottentomatoes. Give it thirty years - this will be a film that film class students will study and it will be in critic's 'Top films of all time' type lists. Citizen Kane was poorly received when it was released, bla bla bla. 5.5/5 Best film of the year. One of my favorite films of all time, if not the favorite. sleeptides posted:\If you know Neutral Milk Hotel, then I will say that, at least for me, the Fountain was to film what In The Aeroplane Over the Sea was to music. Is it creepy that I had this exact same thought while driving home from seeing this, trying to keep myself together? Gambl0r fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Dec 16, 2006 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2006 21:54
|
|
|
I personally burst out crying about 2/3 of the way through. In a good way. I don't really know what to say about this movie other than that clearly (as per other reviews) if you go into it with a certain sort of experience/personality it has the capacity to move you in a seriously cosmic way. I think this movie is designed specifically to work best for the masculine mind - a feminine story with a similar theme would look very different. 5.5
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2006 01:01
|
|
|
What the gently caress (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Somebody fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Dec 21, 2006 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2006 02:00
|
|
|
Definitely a 4.5. I was initially put off by all of the reviews stating that it was too difficult to follow and that the separate plotlines don't really match up. I really disagree completely; I thought it was very well put together and had absolutely no difficulty understanding what was going on. I get a kick out of the fact that people complained about the preachiness of requiem and, when he makes a movie that is a little less obvious, they're mad that he's not making Requiem pt 2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2006 19:19
|
|
|
The Fountain is a journey of life, death and recreation shared by two people whose sole purpose in life is to coexist. Aronofsky's direction rarely satisfies consistent rules, but always the whims of his imagination. We see him take a lot of praiseworthy risks in The Fountain which brilliantly tie together concept, themes and visuals. What makes this film successful, however, is the "big picture". Although some audience members may have found it hard to follow/peice together, The Fountain subjectively represents a reality we all know, we're all afraid of and sooner or later will all have to face. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz give glorious performances and without such strong actors the movie surely would've failed. Their passionate and earnest work gave this film it's emotional core and both deserve to be recognized. All in all, movies like this just aren't made everyday. Hell, they aren't even made every decade. This is the best movie of 2006. PROS: Visually astonishing, emotionally intense, beautifully acted and written. CONS: Weak in plot in some instances, but never presumptuous. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2006 19:14
|
|
|
It is rare that 4 hours after I've left the theater I'm still thinking about the movie I just saw. It is the case with the Fountain. I hadn't seen any trailers for the movie, I went to see it because I think that Aronofsky is a genius and I happen to like Hugh Jackman a lot. I didn't have any preconcieved notions about time-travel and I'm glad I didn't because it probably would have spoiled the experience. I don't really know what more to say. It's a very hard movie to describe, it's as much an experience as it is art and it's something not everyone will enjoy because it requires thought, open-mindedness and a taste for the abstract which not every movie-goer has. If you think you do though, please do yourself a favor and go see this movie, you will not be disappointed. The storylines in my opinion blended very well and the climax was absolutely perfect and made everything feel clear and obvious which, given the breadth of the narrative wasn't an easy task. It's one of these rare movies that feel both long and short at the same time: long because of the emotional journey it takes you through, short because it's hard to believe at the end that the movie lasted an hour and a half. 5.5. The best movie I saw this year, one of the best movies I saw, ever. Kildace fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jan 3, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2007 23:43
|
|
|
Frankly I'm surprised that not everyone understands the three parallel stories or their significance. Izzie's story that she is writing in the present time is her way of coping with the disease and her husband's quest to cure her. The Queen's land is being invaded by the Inquisition (RE: HER DISEASE) and she sends a knight to find a cure for her country (her). When he finishes the story for her, he writes of the Conquistador being (literally) devoured by his quest to find the cure, and missing the whole point, the whole circular nature of things, just as he did. Finally, the space/future section is merely a metaphor for what's going on in his mind/soul. It NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENS. The actual timeline of the movie ends with him placing a seed on his wife's grave, and it's not a seed from any mystical plant, but rather the normal seed of a normal tree. It just simply shows his acceptance of her death and of the circular timeline of life and death. Anyway, I gave this movie a 5/5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2007 07:12
|
|
|
I've posted enough about this in the Cinema Discusso Fountain thread, but this was not only my favorite movie of 2006, but one of my favorite movies, period. It really hit a wonderful chord in me, and furthered my opinion of Aronofsky as one of the saviors of movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2007 18:33
|
|
|
Boring melodrama. A film that tries to be deep and mysterious and ends up coming off as confusing ramblings. Just because something doesn't make sense means that it's deep. To me it's just terrible writing. With 3 story lines I had no idea who the characters really were until the end and by that time I had stopped caring. This is the first time in almost a year that I left the dollar theatre pissed about the money I just spent to see a flick. 1.0 / 5
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 06:18
|
|
|
What a beautiful movie. Everything inside the nebula in the future looks simply magnificent. It's simply breathtaking when the bubble emerges from the cloud of gas. Everything in the movie looked great, but this took the cake. The music matched perfectly and equally coated the movie in a film of brilliance. I took the story much like the OP. The past was Izzi's novel, which Tommy finished by giving Tomas a death in the story when he drinks the sap. That part in itself was incredible, seeing the greed and lust of immortality as he drinks the sap and the final moments where he's realized his fault as he becomes one with the tree. However, I think the present and future are linked, much like many have mentioned. Tommy, reeling from his wife's death, seems to realize that finding immortality is impossible and thus writes the book as such because of his emotions after her death. After Izzi's death, Tommy plants the 'Tree of Life' (following his wife's words) and later returns to work and ultimately perfects immortality for himself, which he sees as an opportunity (and fate) to find his wife in Xibalba. However, in the future, as Tom heads towards the nebula and the tree begins to die, his visions of a long-ago past and the story he read and finished begin to fill up his mind and he realizes as he approaches the nebula that indeed, death will bring them together forever. He sees that even the Tree of Life dies and death is a part of everything. This brings us to Tom's death as he approaches the dying star. And as the tree comes to life 'born again', so are Tommy and Izzie in a sense, truly together forever. I was nervous this movie would lose me and I wouldn't enjoy it like many said when the movie first opened, but I was wrong. Simply amazing. 5.0/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2007 02:35
|
|
|
I gotta say, this movie wasn't without a few minor flaws, but overall, the way the story unfolds is amazing. Also very thought provoking afterwards. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2007 05:40
|
|
|
I stumbled into this movie without having heard anything about it before. I left with a fulfilling experience that made me want to watch the movie again just so I could understand everything that's going on. It's stunningly beautiful. The soundtrack is haunting. The acting is incredible. Most importantly, it's the kind of movie that you go away from thinking, pondering, and discussing. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2007 00:37
|
|
|
This is without a doubt one of the most touching and emotional movies I have ever encountered, it made me tremble with sadness and gape in awe of the beautiful scenery and the unmatched soundtrack by the master Clint Mansell. I rate it as a strong 5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2007 23:34
|
|
|
I felt pretty average about the movie, and a little confused by it. No, very confused. I was, however, awestruck by the beautiful imagery and the fantastic score by Clint Mansell. The movie left me thinking even after the movie was over, wondering what the hell I had been watching. It's definitely better after you've seen it, or even the second time around. Here's my take on it: Everything set in the present time was real. The spanish storyline was, pretty obviously if you ask me, what Weisz' character (Izzi) was writing about her book. She basically wrote about herself and Jackman's character's (Tommy) relationship set in another time as a way of dealing with her illness. As Izzi died, Thomas had to finish her book. So he chose to set the last chapter five hundred years in the future, where space faring bubbles are invented. In this fictional future, Tommys character is travelling towards the Xibalba nebula, where the Mayans believed the afterlife took place, using the Tree of Life to nourish himself on the long journey. Tommy was, in fact, saying that he would wait for a thousand years for Izzi. To summarize; Everything happening today was real, the past and future was the beginning (written by Izzi) and the ending (written by Tommy). What makes this very, very confusing at first is the way the storylines are cut together. Edit: In retrospect, it's pretty obvious to me that the space bubble part was all inside his mind. 4.5/5 Piney fucked around with this message at 19:29 on May 1, 2007 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2007 01:44
|
|
|
The parallel storylines allow for multiple interpretations. The imagery successfully pulls from common threads found in several religions and mythologies. Time-based cutaway passages have been used since Citizen Kane, and those viewers confused by such a method should become more accustomed to established filmmaking techniques before attempting this film. A film can have flaws and still be perfect, and by that, this movie is perfect. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2007 06:34
|
|
|
The cinematography in this film is spectacular. The actual composition of the images shown and the way in which they are presented is spectacular and has a lot of potential to be very moving and powerful. I also feel that a lot of that potential ends up getting wasted with the convoluted sets of stories. You get to the end and you understand the lesson. No one lives forever and nothing is eternal. Cherish the time you have and quit worrying about the inevitable; death. However, even though you understand it, it struck me as a, ah ha we're at the end of the film and it needs to end. Time for these lessons to be learned. I had come into the film hoping there would be an obvious tangable connection between all three stories and they never really materialize. As noted already the past timeline doesn't even seem to ever connect with the modern and future stories. I also feel that there is a continuity issue concerning Future Jackman and Present Jackman's realizations at the end of the film. If he somehow went into time and learned the lesson he should have and went on the walk with her, then why does he continue to live forever and search to get to the nebula if hes learned in both time frames that one must accept death? That bugged me a lot more than Past Jackman's fate which was just sorta silly. The performances given by Jackman and Weisz are both good, although again considering how I felt the plot fell flat detracted from some good performances. Its hard to say they are really great when everything remains vague and confusing overall. I enjoyed the visuals, but the story and narrative left a lot to be desired. I'd say a 2/5. The Notorious ZSB fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Apr 24, 2007 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2007 20:47
|
|
|
Mellow Harsher posted:Frankly I'm surprised that not everyone understands the three parallel stories or their significance. This is exactly take on it. There werent 3 independant stories going on. It was him in different ways. The future section was him wanting to cure it and finding it so hard, hence the frustations and often screams etc. He tried everything he could, and he couldnt find a cure, nor finisht he book. 5/5. Absolutely stunning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2007 13:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
I've been waiting for this movie since 2001/2002, but didn't get a chance to see it while it was in theaters. The wait was worth it. Stunningly shot, beautifully acted, and incredibly moving. My interpretation is that the narrative set in 1500 was the novel that Izzie was writing. A romantic framing of her husband's constant absence and her cancer in the present. By writing it and coming to understand the inevitable and the reasons for why Tommy was always gone and working, she came to accept her fate and let go of any fears that she had. She however couldn't make Tommy realize this, so she left the last chapter of the book open for him to finish, in essence telling him to find his own acceptance and revelations about death. All the scenes set in 1500 and 2500 are playing out in present-day Tommy's head. Both stories represent Tommy's journey toward acceptance. Unable to accept the inevitably of death and the cycle of life, Tommy doesn't know how to end the stories, so the conquistador is forever trapped at the end of the penultimate chapter right before the Mayan priest's deathblow, and the astronaut is forever drifting toward the nebula, prolonging his guilt and deluding himself into believing that he can save the dying tree. It's only after the tree dies and Izzie comes to him, that the astronaut/Tommy realizes that immortality is achieved through death, and not through avoiding it. Knowing how to end the stories, the astronaut sets out to die in the exploding star. Enlightened astronaut's appearance before the Mayan priest represents Tommy taking control of that story and moving forward with the ending. The conquistador was Tommy as the conqueror, deluded and willing to stop at nothing to find immortality for the dying crown. He left this world - as the female scientist's eulogy would say it - "kicking and screaming," the opposite of how Izzie left. Even though the conquistador was fighting for the Queen, his death leads Tommy to understand that his efforts and energies were in the wrong direction. Picking up the ring and placing it on his finger, the astronaut re-finds Izzie and accepts his place next to her in death. Tommy has achieved the "measure of grace" and "whole[ness]" that Izzie found. The final scene ends with Tommy choosing Izzie over his futile work. The seed that she holds represents the knowledge of wholeness and grace that she is finally able to share with him. He contemplates the seed and Izzie's idea of "death as an act of creation," and plants the seed on her grave. He's accepted the cycle of life and found his own "road to awe." The movie fades out, and no more in denial, Tommy doesn't have to lie when he tells Izzie "everything's alright." I can also see many other ways to interpret the story, but after typing that out, I appreciate the movie even more. It's one of those rare movies (like Solaris) that leave you stunned and thinking it about long after it's over. 5/5
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2007 04:04
|
|