- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Stewie's Movie of the Week - Week 2 - "The Fountain"
Posted on 1/15/09 at 6:01 pm
Posted on 1/15/09 at 6:01 pm
Welcome, ladies and gents to the second installment of Stewie's Movie of the Week.
For those who were unaware, I have begun a trek of blockbuster proportions to dive into the deepest waters of cinema and come up with what gems I find at the bottom. Last week's MoTW thread, featuring "Memento," can be seen here. LINK
All week, I have had my mind set on a particular film, a throw back to the 60s, and my fingers have been itching to type all my praises on it. However, I must put that film on hiatus, but it will be featured soon enough.
The movie I have chosen instead is a bit of a controversial film. There is no middle ground on this film: you will either love it, or hate it. I loved it.
Darren Aronofski's "The Fountain" is one of the most unique films I have ever seen. It's bold, and borderline pretentious, and it's pretty poorly reviewed among the who's-who of film critique...and I absolutely love it.
Aronofski calls it the film he has been preparing for his entire career. It's an exploration of love, heartbreak, metaphysics, religion, the human experience, and most importantly, death. It takes place over a thousand years or so, and it features a touching performance by Hugh Jackman (yes, I said "touching" and "Hugh Jackman" in the same sentence, and somewhere Dr. Cox is having a conniption) in the lead role.
This movie is not for everyone: it's a mind-ravaging 98 minutes that will leave some viewers stunned and others simply dazed and confused. If nothing else, it is a visually stunning film, and it is symbolically about as rich as they come.
Don't get me wrong, this movie is flawed. It's over the top, and even at only 98 minutes it has some fat that could be chewed off (and even some missing pieces that would improve it). It's no masterpiece.
Still, it's a bold film, one of the boldest I have ever seen, and for that I applaud it and look forward to the next time I watch it.
A little lagniappe: Brad Pitt was set to star in the film, which began production in 2002. However, he dropped out, and the studio dropped the film. Aronofski picked it up two years later with half the budget and Hugh Jackman in Pitt's stead. (Ironic that the first two movies I've picked have been leads abandoned by Brad Pitt)
(Remember, the initial post is spoiler-free, but any replies from here on out could be infested with rotting spoilers ready to taint your vestal mind)
For those who were unaware, I have begun a trek of blockbuster proportions to dive into the deepest waters of cinema and come up with what gems I find at the bottom. Last week's MoTW thread, featuring "Memento," can be seen here. LINK
All week, I have had my mind set on a particular film, a throw back to the 60s, and my fingers have been itching to type all my praises on it. However, I must put that film on hiatus, but it will be featured soon enough.
The movie I have chosen instead is a bit of a controversial film. There is no middle ground on this film: you will either love it, or hate it. I loved it.
Darren Aronofski's "The Fountain" is one of the most unique films I have ever seen. It's bold, and borderline pretentious, and it's pretty poorly reviewed among the who's-who of film critique...and I absolutely love it.
Aronofski calls it the film he has been preparing for his entire career. It's an exploration of love, heartbreak, metaphysics, religion, the human experience, and most importantly, death. It takes place over a thousand years or so, and it features a touching performance by Hugh Jackman (yes, I said "touching" and "Hugh Jackman" in the same sentence, and somewhere Dr. Cox is having a conniption) in the lead role.
This movie is not for everyone: it's a mind-ravaging 98 minutes that will leave some viewers stunned and others simply dazed and confused. If nothing else, it is a visually stunning film, and it is symbolically about as rich as they come.
Don't get me wrong, this movie is flawed. It's over the top, and even at only 98 minutes it has some fat that could be chewed off (and even some missing pieces that would improve it). It's no masterpiece.
Still, it's a bold film, one of the boldest I have ever seen, and for that I applaud it and look forward to the next time I watch it.
A little lagniappe: Brad Pitt was set to star in the film, which began production in 2002. However, he dropped out, and the studio dropped the film. Aronofski picked it up two years later with half the budget and Hugh Jackman in Pitt's stead. (Ironic that the first two movies I've picked have been leads abandoned by Brad Pitt)
(Remember, the initial post is spoiler-free, but any replies from here on out could be infested with rotting spoilers ready to taint your vestal mind)
This post was edited on 1/15/09 at 6:05 pm
4
Posted on 1/15/09 at 6:33 pm to Stewie Griffin
amazing soundtrack.
The mayans are the coolest part.
The mayans are the coolest part.
Posted on 1/15/09 at 6:40 pm to Stewie Griffin
Confusing? Yes.
Convoluted? Oh, yeah, big time.
But still a very good, visually striking, beautiful film.
Good choice, Stewie.
Convoluted? Oh, yeah, big time.
But still a very good, visually striking, beautiful film.
Good choice, Stewie.
Posted on 1/15/09 at 6:47 pm to Hero0831
I really wish Aronofski would have "completed" the movie.
He finished it...but he left out just a little bit somewhere along the way. It felt like he put all the pieces together, but there were a couple of pieces that would have fit better.
Let me put it this way...I thought the film could not have been directed much better. It was virtually perfect in that sense. The script, however, had a few kinks that could have been hammered out. Maybe it's because I missed it the first time around (very likely), but I didn't feel like he fully told Tom/Tomas' story.
Maybe that was his intention...the whole moral of the story was that the journey is just part of it all, and that the destination is the true perfection of man, but I don't know, I wanted more out of the journey. That's probably a reflection on my own views of life/death.
He finished it...but he left out just a little bit somewhere along the way. It felt like he put all the pieces together, but there were a couple of pieces that would have fit better.
Let me put it this way...I thought the film could not have been directed much better. It was virtually perfect in that sense. The script, however, had a few kinks that could have been hammered out. Maybe it's because I missed it the first time around (very likely), but I didn't feel like he fully told Tom/Tomas' story.
Maybe that was his intention...the whole moral of the story was that the journey is just part of it all, and that the destination is the true perfection of man, but I don't know, I wanted more out of the journey. That's probably a reflection on my own views of life/death.
Posted on 1/15/09 at 6:51 pm to SirRohantheDefender
quote:
amazing soundtrack.
Indeed. Clint Mansell received several nominations for best score/soundtrack/etc. Matthew Liabtique as well for the cinematography...easily the two best features of the film. Incredible lighting (an absolute must for the story)
Posted on 1/15/09 at 7:05 pm to Stewie Griffin
I almost forgot to suggest this to you. If you would like to see Aronofsky's complete story, do yourself a favor and pick up the graphic novel.
quote:
When his plans for the ambitious, millennia--spanning fantasy film The Fountain were derailed, Pi and Requiem for a Dream director Aronofsky recast the story as a graphic novel, and although the movie was subsequently revived (starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz), the comics version stayed on track. Its three parallel stories, set in sixteenth-century Central America, the present day, and the distant future, respectively, depict the same man as a conquistador, a scientist, and an interplanetary explorer, always trying to prevent the death of the woman he desperately loves. Aronofsky's epic boldly blends mysticism and science, which coalesce in the hero's discovery of the mythical Tree of Life. Williams' lush, painted artwork, stylistically and narratologically reminiscent of Sandman illustrator Dave McKean's work, perfectly matches the script's passion and challenging abstruseness. Not simply an adaptation of the movie--the screenplay that is its basis being significantly altered when the film project was revived--the lavish, oversize graphic novel ought to be fascinating to compare with the released movie. Gordon Flagg
Posted on 1/15/09 at 7:09 pm to Hero0831
quote:
I almost forgot to suggest this to you. If you would like to see Aronofsky's complete story, do yourself a favor and pick up the graphic novel.
Novel is great. You can also find it *cough* other places if you know what I mean.
Do an Internet search on "CDisplay".
Posted on 1/15/09 at 9:47 pm to CAD703X
Looking forward to reading what Aronofski could have done with a full budget
Posted on 1/16/09 at 1:31 am to Stewie Griffin
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/20/09 at 4:16 pm
Posted on 1/16/09 at 11:15 am to Stewie Griffin
This is the only Aranofsky movie that is worth a shite. I really appreciated it for what it was, although it was pretty boring at times. Visually stunning. I need to watch it again.
Posted on 1/16/09 at 11:33 am to Tiger JJ
I started watching this movie on HBO one day. I thought it was absolutely awesome.
I also loved Pi, and didn't realize it was the same director.
I also loved Pi, and didn't realize it was the same director.
Posted on 1/16/09 at 11:38 am to Mongeaux
quote:
I also loved Pi, and didn't realize it was the same director.
Same director as Requiem for a Dream. ugh
Posted on 1/16/09 at 11:39 am to Tiger JJ
Yeah, although I liked the movie, I would never, never, ever watch it again...
I will try and see The Wrestler soon though...
I will try and see The Wrestler soon though...
Posted on 1/16/09 at 1:44 pm to Tiger JJ
quote:
This is the only Aranofsky movie that is worth a shite.
Boy, do we have completely incompatible tastes in movies. I think Aronofsky is arguably the greatest young director working today. The truly great thing about him is that his four movies are all so stylistically different. He's about the only great director I can think of who is so dynamic.
I love the Fountain and think it is a beautiful, yet flawed masterpiece. I still think, strangely enough, Aronofsky has never matched the visceral brilliance of Pi. His first effort had a sort of imemdiacy that his other films have not had (until the Wrestler).
Aronofsky's biggest flaw is that he is such a great technician he sometimes puts a little too much distance between himself and the stroy. He doesn't gut punch the audience, even when he can. Which also might be one of his skills, as he lets the actors carve out their own characters. Most "technical" directors are not known as being actor-friendly, but I think Aronofsky is very good at allowing his actors to really tear into the role on their own terms.
I love ambition. Aronofsky's films are extraordinarily ambitious.
Posted on 1/16/09 at 1:47 pm to Baloo
quote:
I love ambition. Aronofsky's films are extraordinarily ambitious.
I can respect Pi as ambitious - particularly given the budget. But there is no way you can get me to say that about RFAD. It was like it was an expensive version of all those stupid scare films they showed you in elementary school about drugs (that incidentally most people love to make fun of.)
Posted on 1/16/09 at 2:05 pm to Tiger JJ
Funny, that was always my knock on Traffic. The girl does heroin once and 24 hours later she is literally a street whore. 24 hours. Reefer Madness was more believable, and Traffic was up for an Oscar.
What I like about RFAD is that they have good times as well. You can see why they do it. I think it's the descendent of the Trainspotting school of anti-drug films: drugs are fun, but eventually, you're going to end up in a bad way. The descent is slow in RFAD and its always a function of choice. they all have a chance to stop using and get their lives together but refuse, and well, end up in a really bad way.
The last 20 minutes of that movie though... wow, I saw that in the theatre and lost about 5 pounds because I sweated so much. Just an intense series of scenes, especially with the music.
What I like about RFAD is that they have good times as well. You can see why they do it. I think it's the descendent of the Trainspotting school of anti-drug films: drugs are fun, but eventually, you're going to end up in a bad way. The descent is slow in RFAD and its always a function of choice. they all have a chance to stop using and get their lives together but refuse, and well, end up in a really bad way.
The last 20 minutes of that movie though... wow, I saw that in the theatre and lost about 5 pounds because I sweated so much. Just an intense series of scenes, especially with the music.
Posted on 1/16/09 at 2:09 pm to Baloo
quote:
he sometimes puts a little too much distance between himself and the stroy
This was my biggest beef with The Fountain. Which is strange, because he co-wrote the script.
quote:
I love ambition. Aronofsky's films are extraordinarily ambitious.
My thoughts exactly. He's got an artist's ability to paint a picture of a movie, but he can get caught up in the vision and blotch a few details. At least that's what I got from The Fountain.
Posted on 1/16/09 at 6:53 pm to Stewie Griffin
fountain and requiem have 2 of the best soundtracks/scores from movies
Posted on 1/17/09 at 9:39 am to Stewie Griffin
Great idea for a thread Stewie. Keep it up and thanks for the work you put into it.
I agree wholeheartedly with your take on The Fountain. Beautifully flawed work of art that touches on so many themes its hard to take in all at once.
I missed your review of Memento last week, but just read it and after reading your take I'm definitely going to watch it again. I only saw it once when it first came out on video and liked it, but was a little disappointed after hearing all of the hype about it. I found it a little gimmicky, but always meant to give it another chance.
Can't wait to read your review for next week. A "throwback to the 60's". I'm intrigued.
I agree wholeheartedly with your take on The Fountain. Beautifully flawed work of art that touches on so many themes its hard to take in all at once.
I missed your review of Memento last week, but just read it and after reading your take I'm definitely going to watch it again. I only saw it once when it first came out on video and liked it, but was a little disappointed after hearing all of the hype about it. I found it a little gimmicky, but always meant to give it another chance.
Can't wait to read your review for next week. A "throwback to the 60's". I'm intrigued.
This post was edited on 1/17/09 at 9:40 am
Posted on 1/17/09 at 10:46 am to Baloo
quote:
Boy, do we have completely incompatible tastes in movies. I think Aronofsky is arguably the greatest young director working today. The truly great thing about him is that his four movies are all so stylistically different. He's about the only great director I can think of who is so dynamic.
I love the Fountain and think it is a beautiful, yet flawed masterpiece. I still think, strangely enough, Aronofsky has never matched the visceral brilliance of Pi. His first effort had a sort of imemdiacy that his other films have not had (until the Wrestler).
Aronofsky's biggest flaw is that he is such a great technician he sometimes puts a little too much distance between himself and the stroy. He doesn't gut punch the audience, even when he can. Which also might be one of his skills, as he lets the actors carve out their own characters. Most "technical" directors are not known as being actor-friendly, but I think Aronofsky is very good at allowing his actors to really tear into the role on their own terms.
I love ambition. Aronofsky's films are extraordinarily ambitious.
I second this.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News