The Fountain. Is it worth a watch?

Yes, the fountain is fucking awesome. Aranofsky is the man.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Aronofsky is of about average talent for a Hollywood director but tries very hard. He ends up using a ton of cliches and "cheap shot"-like storytelling tactics that are hallmarks of guys trying to get a stronger emotional effect then they are able to generate with their real storytelling talent. He wants to deal with big, brilliant concepts, but he has trouble coming up with anything very insightful or creative to say. Pi is a great example. He has a story about a "mathematical genius," but the big discovery is that there's a long math equation that dictates everything that will happen. Pretty much everyone who's thought a bit about fate or probability (or probably took a hit of a bong) wonders if everything goes according to a special formula. It's like someone making a movie where the big revelation is that the universe is one atom in another, bigger universe. It's a pretty cliched thought.

If it helps, consider that Black Swan, which had a much more coherent story than the Fountain, but dealt with something a bit more unique (a ballet dancer), had much more awards attention than the Fountain. And The Wrestler, which was more coherent, dealt with some more grounded and heartfelt issues, and also tackled more fresh ground for a drama story (a faded pro wrestler in the real world, where it's not a sport and old wrestlers deal with fading fame and drug addiction), got the best positive attention of all. Aronofsky probably doesn't get why though, and in his mind he thinks it's because people "weren't ready for" the pure deepness of the Fountain. In reality, people love to deal with ambitious stories that deal with huge issues, when handled better in actual stories (see: 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Twilight Zone, or Citizen Kane), and Aronofsky just doesn't get it.
 
Last edited:
EGarrett said:
Aronofsky is of about average talent for a Hollywood director but tries very hard. He ends up using a ton of cliches and "cheap shot"-like storytelling tactics that are hallmarks of guys trying to get a stronger emotional effect then they are able to generate with their real storytelling talent. He wants to deal with big, brilliant concepts, but he has trouble coming up with anything very insightful or creative to say. Pi is a great example. He has a story about a "mathematical genius," but the big discovery is that there's a long math equation that dictates everything that will happen. Pretty much everyone who's thought a bit about fate or probability (or probably took a hit of a bong) wonders if everything goes according to a special formula. It's like someone making a movie where the big revelation is that the universe is one atom in another, bigger universe. It's a pretty cliched thought.

If it helps, consider that Black Swan, which had a much more coherent story than the Fountain, but dealt with something a bit more unique (a ballet dancer), had much more awards attention than the Fountain. And The Wrestler, which was more coherent, dealt with some more grounded and heartfelt issues, and also tackled more fresh ground for a drama story (a faded pro wrestler in the real world, where it's not a sport and old wrestlers deal with fading fame and drug addiction), got the best positive attention of all. Aronofsky probably doesn't get why though, and in his mind he thinks it's because people "weren't ready for" the pure deepness of the Fountain. In reality, people love to deal with ambitious stories that deal with huge issues, when handled better in actual stories (see: 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Twilight Zone, or Citizen Kane), and Aronofsky just doesn't get it.
Click to expand...

So pondering the existence of the universe in the form of a math equation is a played-out concept but the story of a ballerina or a deadbeat dad isn't? Interesting. I think you're turning this into something completely different than "Aronofsky isn't good." It sounds like "I don't like how he operates as an artist so take my opinion"

The Fountain was absolutely, and completely mediocre. The acting was my main complaint and I actually turned it off halfway through just because I just couldn't get into the storyline (and I didn't pay for it so I felt no obligations).

Darren has a distinct style of direction and storytelling that belongs to no one but himself. That's not an opinion. He's immensely talented and has created absolute masterpieces in the past. I do agree that The Fountain isn't one of them but don't turn this into a "Darren Aronofsky's not that good" thread because that's complete horse shit.
 
KAZSoliloquy said:
So pondering the existence of the universe in the form of a math equation is a played-out concept but the story of a ballerina or a deadbeat dad isn't?
Click to expand...
You're distorting Pi to make it sound less cliched than it was. He specifically uses the math equation to predict stock market results, it's plain old bong hit "what if everything happens according to some math formula" philosophizing. You're also trying to distort the Wrestler to make it sound more cliched.

That's not a good thing to do. It wastes everyone's time.

Interesting. I think you're turning this into something completely different than "Aronofsky isn't good." It sounds like "I don't like how he operates as an artist so take my opinion"
Click to expand...
I'm telling you that Aronofsky works very hard but isn't as talented as he wants to be, and the Fountain was a prime example.

It's not as subjective as people think. If your goal is to get positive attention for a movie, OR to make money, OR to win awards, OR to get good reviews, OR for people to think you're talented (any one of those individual things), then you should tell a good story. Aronofsky failed on to do so even on basic levels, and the mistakes he made were amateur film student type mistakes.

For one reason or another, he did much better with subsequent movies which were coherent and less pretentious. Though I'm not sure if that was on purpose or because someone else with financing power basically forced him to do it.

The Fountain was absolutely, and completely mediocre. The acting was my main complaint and I actually turned it off halfway through just because I just couldn't get into the storyline (and I didn't pay for it so I felt no obligations).
Click to expand...
Yes, I can tell you a few very good reasons why you couldn't get into the storyline, and why I couldn't and basically everyone else who saw it couldn't either.

Darren has a distinct style of direction and storytelling that belongs to no one but himself. That's not an opinion. He's immensely talented and has created absolute masterpieces in the past.
Click to expand...
Those are opinions. And opinions are only worth as much as the reasoning or evidence that backs them up. I'm happy to offer my reasons why my opinion differs from yours. For what it's worth, I also predicted beforehand that the Fountain would gross 11 million dollars (which is insanely small for the budget and the actors and the notoriety of the director) and win no major awards. I was right.
 
I enjoyed the film. It had great visuals and the story had a solid story, despite it being a little confusing.
 
I want to hear all these people saying how much they liked it to explain what the fuck was going on, and how they interpreted it.

You'll see 10 different answers, if any at all, every one of them different because the movie was a hollow love story bolstered by visual effects.
 
SafyreSchool said:
I want to hear all these people saying how much they liked it to explain what the fuck was going on, and how they interpreted it.

You'll see 10 different answers, if any at all, every one of them different because the movie was a hollow love story bolstered by visual effects.
Click to expand...


it's been a while since i've seen it, but i thought it was about how man cannot change some things in life, mainly death. there are things, again mainly death, that we have to learn to accept. the love story was the vehicle in which aronofsky sought to teach that lesson. hugh jackman had to learn to accept death or fate; no amount of searching or exploring (as a conquistador looking for the tree of life) or scientific research can change the fate/death of his love.

i saw the "past (conquistador jackman)" as the consequences of pushing too far beyond what man is supposed to know or see. when conquistador jackman finally finds the tree of life and drinks from it, he learns that the results of achieving his goal are completely different than what he thought it would be. again, even when we think that we understand life, and death, and fate, we are humbled by just how much we really don't know.

i think the "future (zen jackman)" represented enlightenment and learning to be at peace with life as a whole, the universe. i think the idea is, achieving enlightenment about the whole of life, which is more than simply accepting that we all die. perhaps something like not only complete understanding of life, but also what comes after death.

i saw the "present (scientist jackman)" as the struggle to accept death/fate and the eventual acceptance of it. after his wife (weisz) is sick, jackman tries everything in his power, as a scientist, to find a cure to her sickness. he's crushed when she dies, but eventually he lets her go and accepts death.

basically, i think the movie is about the consequences of trying to alter fate or more-so the battle to understand that we cannot understand life. i could be way off though. just my two cents.

oh, and i really liked the movie. doesn't hurt that weisz is one of the most beautiful women in hollywood.
 
Last edited:
I loved it. It's visually fantastic, and the score is amazing. Jackman is always great in dramas. The last 10 minutes is beautiful stuff.
 
HuntersCreed said:
Terrance Mallick is always worth a watch.
Click to expand...

The Fountain wasn't Malick (if you weren't suggesting it was, my bad). I didn't like the Fountain much. Not that much substance. It was great visually, though.
 
KAZSoliloquy said:
So pondering the existence of the universe in the form of a math equation is a played-out concept but the story of a ballerina or a deadbeat dad isn't? Interesting. I think you're turning this into something completely different than "Aronofsky isn't good." It sounds like "I don't like how he operates as an artist so take my opinion"

The Fountain was absolutely, and completely mediocre. The acting was my main complaint and I actually turned it off halfway through just because I just couldn't get into the storyline (and I didn't pay for it so I felt no obligations).

Darren has a distinct style of direction and storytelling that belongs to no one but himself. That's not an opinion. He's immensely talented and has created absolute masterpieces in the past. I do agree that The Fountain isn't one of them but don't turn this into a "Darren Aronofsky's not that good" thread because that's complete horse shit.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this fully. I've enjoyed the vast majority of Aronofsky's films but The Fountain just seemed like a hollow movie. It looked great but there wasn't much too it.
 
SafyreSchool said:
I want to hear all these people saying how much they liked it to explain what the fuck was going on, and how they interpreted it.

You'll see 10 different answers, if any at all, every one of them different because the movie was a hollow love story bolstered by visual effects.
Click to expand...

seemed petty clear the film took place in 3 surroundings.

-real life
-Weisz's "The Fountain" manuscript
-Jackmans dream sequence

Its about accepting death, which also explains how Jackman finished the last chapter of the manuscript with the tree not healing the conquistador and not bringing him eternal life.
 
^ Dream sequence?

I felt it took place in two parallel instances, the Future, because Jackman actually "solves" death, and is able too go "back" to his/our Present (when Izzy dies), and the other period is actually fantasy/the book.

Edit: Spoilt, and loved the movie. Most don't enjoy it. I don't care for the female leads acting, but overall, a pretty potent flick.
 
Last edited:
hell no, that movie was terrible. If you're into some obfuscated hippie bullshit go for it.
 
One of my favorite movies.

Btw, I consider it quite silly to ask people's opinions about a film you haven't seen, if you're already an Aronofsky fan. Just watch it. You're only going to get aspects of it ruined for you. No offense, just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bornstarch
Is Dune worth reading?
2
Replies
34
Views
904
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
590
GolovKing
GolovKing

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,049
Messages
55,463,656
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top