The Fountain. Is it worth a watch?

everything is open to interpretation. Some people will see a piece of shit and think it's an allegory for an economic collapse of a high debt capitalistic geopolitical climate. To others it's just a piece of shit.
 
Michaelangelo said:
everything is open to interpretation. Some people will see a piece of shit and think it's an allegory for an economic collapse of a high debt capitalistic geopolitical climate. To others it's just a piece of shit.
Click to expand...

That's like saying "nothing matters because we're all going to eventually die" which, while true, is a piss poor defense for a piss poor film.
 
One of my all time favorite movies. I thought the acting was all that it needed to be as well. Beautiful film
 
Well that's unfortunate a few people couldn't appreciate a thought provoking movie that leaves the person open to their own interpretations. That sounds like fun to me, and it was. I enjoyed piecing things together and reading about different interpretations on IMDB.
 
KAZSoliloquy said:
I'm watching it now and everything about it is good except for the acting. Classic Aronofsky direction/score/visual tricks. The only thing missing is a competent cast. I'm about a half hour in.
Click to expand...

ice_cube_wtf_gqvqs30u.gif
 
yes. really like the movie - visuals, themes and musical score are great IMO.

perhaps casting could have been better, but given the scope,nature of the film and what was pulled off - i would think a lot could have gone wrong with this film that didnt.
 
It was kinda hard to understand for me, which only made me want to watch it again, which I did. I liked it.
 
KAZSoliloquy said:
Aronofsky's talent is beyond the norm of directors. The man's ideas are unfathomable. It sounds very pretentious but he's truly that good. And this movie is a bit weak but that's not Darren's fault at all unless he chose Hugh and Rachel to star in it.
Click to expand...
Originally he had cast Brad Pitt, who famously sported a giant beard for a few months before ultimately dropping out to do TROY. He was to star against Cate Blanchett. The movie disintegrated although some sets had been built. Aronofsky would get the project off the ground years later, first as a painted comic then as the film you see today. Personally I think I would not understand the story had I not experienced both.

Also, though with Pitt the budget was much higher I think his version would have come off too Chanel no. 5.
 
It's practically unwatchable to be honest.
It's all visual and no substance, and the CGI visuals definitely seem out of place for an Aronofsky film.

If you are a fan Aronofsky's Noir/Avant-garde/Eclectic style of film, then I highly advise you to skip this one.
 
it took me a couple of viewings to fully appreciate. the first time I was to busy trying to figure out what was going on.
 
Rhood said:
It's practically unwatchable to be honest.
It's all visual and no substance, and the CGI visuals definitely seem out of place for an Aronofsky film.

If you are a fan Aronofsky's Noir/Avant-garde/Eclectic style of film, then I highly advise you to skip this one.
Click to expand...

To create a death scene, Aronofsky drew from Mayan mythology the description of flowers and butterflies emerging from the bodies of valiant warriors when they die. Aronofsky excluded butterflies from the death scene to minimize the film's computer-generated imagery but kept the effect of flowers bursting from the body.[38]

Jeremy Dawson and Dan Schrecker, who had provided visual effects for Darren Aronofsky's π and Requiem for a Dream, returned to The Fountain to help the director with the film's effects. The pair was assigned the task of creating as little computer-generated imagery as possible, a difficult task with a third of the film taking place in deep space. Aronofsky chose to avoid effects that would make the film look dated in several decades but instead hold up as well as a film like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Dawson said, "Using CG is really the easy route because it's so prevalent and the tools are great. What it did was really force us to come up with creative solutions to solve a lot of our problems."

One creative solution was uncovering Peter Parks, a specialist in macro photography, who had retrieved deep-sea microorganisms and photographed them in 3-D under partial funding from the Bahamas government. Parks brewed chemicals and bacteria together to create reactions that Schrecker and Dawson shot 20,000 feet worth of film of over eight weeks.[40] To create the effects, Peter Parks took advantage of fluid dynamics, which affected the behavior of the substances that he photographed. "When these images are projected on a big screen, you feel like you're looking at infinity. That's because the same forces at work in the water
 
Rhood said:
It's practically unwatchable to be honest.
It's all visual and no substance, and the CGI visuals definitely seem out of place for an Aronofsky film.

If you are a fan Aronofsky's Noir/Avant-garde/Eclectic style of film, then I highly advise you to skip this one.
Click to expand...

I got about halfway into it and just was not interested. The direction did seem very Aronofsky-esque and the score was unreal but the acting was just not my cup of tea. Just my opinion.

RONDAbyARMBAR said:
I loved this movie...am I the only person that liked Black Swan?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Black Swan completely solidified my love for Darren's work. Requiem is, to this day, still my favorite film of all-time. Pi was great and so was The Wrestler. Noah will certainly be an interesting film.
 
KAZSoliloquy said:
I got about halfway into it and just was not interested. The direction did seem very Aronofsky-esque and the score was unreal but the acting was just not my cup of tea. Just my opinion.



Absolutely not. Black Swan completely solidified my love for Darren's work. Requiem is, to this day, still my favorite film of all-time. Pi was great and so was The Wrestler. Noah will certainly be an interesting film.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised acting is your major gripe with the movie. It's a demanding film and my favorite of all of Aronofksy's efforts, perhaps tied with pi. It will drive you mad if you want a cerebral understanding of th emovie but as an experience to be felt, it is quite devastating and powerful.

Black Swan and the Fighter work really well as companion movies too.
 
UFCfightman said:
I'm surprised acting is your major gripe with the movie. It's a demanding film and my favorite of all of Aronofksy's efforts, perhaps tied with pi. It will drive you mad if you want a cerebral understanding of th emovie but as an experience to be felt, it is quite devastating and powerful.

Black Swan and the Fighter work really well as companion movies too.
Click to expand...

It just seemed like Jackman was trying too hard to be mysterious and Weiss was a bit boring. I may try it again another day. Usually Aronofsky hires better actors. I was surprised.

I guarantee there are a ton of people who love the film, just not my thing is all. And I thought Darren was only the producer of The Fighter?
 
KAZSoliloquy said:
It just seemed like Jackman was trying too hard to be mysterious and Weiss was a bit boring. I may try it again another day. Usually Aronofsky hires better actors. I was surprised.

I guarantee there are a ton of people who love the film, just not my thing is all. And I thought Darren was only the producer of The Fighter?
Click to expand...

my bad, meant the wrestler
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bornstarch
Is Dune worth reading?
2
Replies
34
Views
901
Tone C
T
Boomb
Is Youtube Premium worth it?
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
2K
IDGETKTFO
IDGETKTFO
KOPPE
Is it worth watching Spongebob as an adult?
2
Replies
24
Views
584
GolovKing
GolovKing

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,903
Messages
55,453,835
Members
174,785
Latest member
ljae89

Share this page

Back
Top