Read Mixed User Reviews for The Fountain

6

HIramG.Jun 11, 2007

Director added too many things that takes you out of the main theme of the movie.

1 of 1 users found this helpful

6

NINJul 24, 2007

I give it a 6 for making me feel like I had some barbiturates. The concept is amazing but unfortunately it was not captured in the film. It would have been a better film if they stuck and focused on one lifetime. I bet Hugh Jackman himself I give it a 6 for making me feel like I had some barbiturates. The concept is amazing but unfortunately it was not captured in the film. It would have been a better film if they stuck and focused on one lifetime. I bet Hugh Jackman himself didn't know what his own film was about. It was crazy, a big mess and a definite waste of time. I could definitely live without watching this film in my lifetime.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

6

TyeN.Nov 26, 2006

Okay....I'm giving this film a six out of ten. Here's why: It drove me mad! It's the first film I've ever seen where nearly everyone in the theater booed when the credits started rolling. I heard someone shout, "I want my Okay....I'm giving this film a six out of ten. Here's why: It drove me mad! It's the first film I've ever seen where nearly everyone in the theater booed when the credits started rolling. I heard someone shout, "I want my money back!", and others yelling about how "This movie is horrible!" Here are my problems with it. First of all, the cinematography is moody, and I get that, but it's almost too dark that it becomes depresssing. The movie makes you work harder than any other film only to reach your own conclusion without any real sense of closure on it's own merits. This is maddening. But the most maddening aspect? The overall theme. What is it? Is it a morality tale about whether you should live forever if given the opportunity? Is it about love and it's endless bounds between two soul mates? Is it about the cycle of life and death? All of these themes pop up, but none are clearly designated to the plot. Speaking of which, here it is (without any real spoilers): Tommy Creo (Hugh Jackman) is a scientist who is working on a cure for a cancerous tumor that is killing his wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz). This is the central plotline. The second is the story of a conquistador named Tomas (again, Hugh Jackman) searching for the tree of life to save Spain and his queen Isabel (Rachel Weisz again). This story is actually a book that current day Izzi is writing, but can't seem to find an ending for. Finally, the third storyline is set in the future and is given no explanation at all. All you know is that Tommy (still Hugh Jackman) is floating through space in a clear bubble with nothing but a tree. He keeps having flash backs of Izzi and the book she was writing. Now that all of that is out of the way, let's get to what's good. I like that Darren Aronofsky is trying to do something different and epic. This is a romance that spreads across time and beyond. However, the execution just isn't as good as it could have been (or tries to be). The real high point is the acting. Weisz is beautiful and effective as Izzi, but her character just doesn't have the time to become three dimensional. She makes her affectionate and still worth caring about. But the real star and the film's highest point is Hugh Jackman. This is definitely his finest performance. He brings menacing anger to Tomas, and subtle beauty in the futuristic scenes. But the central plotline is where he shines. Tommy is a complex man that is so in love with his wife that he is willing to do the seemingly impossible. After 'The Prestige', Hugh Jackman deserves to be nominated for Best Actor for this film. He gives stand-out performances in both, but he owns the screen in 'The Fountain'. The other big stand-out is Ellen Burstyn. Her screen time is fairly short, but she is fierce as Dr. Lillian Guzetti, the head of the project that Tommy is desperately leading. I think that she is more Oscar worthy for Supporting Actress than Weisz is. I think that the film is worth seeing for sure, but it is not the masterpiece that Aronofsky so stubbornly believes it is. But if he keeps trying, I think he may eventually make that masterpiece.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

6

BarryR.Dec 2, 2006

1 of 1 users found this helpful

5

IanPMay 31, 2007

Unquestionably a bad film, despite its visual splendor. Not bad in a way you can sink your teeth into, bad for its incredibly vague, cloyingly sentimental, new agey, breathtakingly empty, pseudo-philosophical jibber jabber. Bad in a way that Unquestionably a bad film, despite its visual splendor. Not bad in a way you can sink your teeth into, bad for its incredibly vague, cloyingly sentimental, new agey, breathtakingly empty, pseudo-philosophical jibber jabber. Bad in a way that makes me suspect that the people who made it don't really know the difference between a powerful statement about life and death (however ambiguous: that is NOT the issue here) and a conglomeration of impressive images hung together on the feeblest and most pretentious of threads. Which would make this a horrof film, of sorts, but emblematic of an age that will doubtless be remembered above all for its sheer vacuity.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful

4

WesJ.Dec 5, 2006

Visually appealing but the muddled plot kept me from enjoying it. Perhaps if I had seen it in a better theater I would have enjoyed it more.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

TJW.Feb 12, 2007

Ah, Mr. Aronofsky...where did you go wrong? The director of two of the best films of the last ten years, Pi: Faith In Chaos and Requiem For A Dream, released his latest, the $80 million dollar sci-fi epic The Fountain this week, and while it Ah, Mr. Aronofsky...where did you go wrong? The director of two of the best films of the last ten years, Pi: Faith In Chaos and Requiem For A Dream, released his latest, the $80 million dollar sci-fi epic The Fountain this week, and while it starts off pretty well, it finishes up by proposing 500 different questions and not answering ANY of them. The movie tells three different stories; of Tomas, a 16th century conquistador searching for the tree of life; Tom Creo, a man desperately searching for a cure to his wife's brain tumor before she dies; and Tommy, a 26th century astronaut who is trying to do...something. The movie starts off pretty well, as it focuses mainly on the story of Tom. As he spends all his time searching for a cure, trying to extend his wife's life, he doesn't realize that he is wasting all the time that he does have with her, and is going to regret it in the end. I really liked this story (it was one of the few things I did like in this movie) and I think, had he not tried to do so much and instead JUST focused on this story, he could have had a great modern romance story on his hands. Unfortunately, he decides to stick two other stories in; this is where the movie completely fails. No one I know who's seen this really understood the point of either of these stories, and, sadly, there are going to be plenty of people who saw this movie who claim that you aren't supposed to understand everything, that's how it's supposed to be; don't believe them. This is just a copout because no one wants to admit that this great director has made a bad film. The acting here is pretty good. Rachel Weisz, who won an Oscar last year for The Constant Gardener, is great as Tom's wife, who is eternally optimistic about her death, although she cannot convince her husband of the same. Ellen Burstyn is also good as the fellow doctor of Tom, trying to convince him that he needs to embrace the time his wife does have instead of trying to create more. Hugh Jackman, however, is a different story; as Tom, the obsessed doctor trying to save his wife, he is pretty good, but when he switches to Tomas or Tommy, he makes some facial expressions that, although they are meant to be deep and moving, end up being almost laughable. The script is a completely muddled mess; Aronofsky tries to toss in deep theological question after deep theological question, but the script just ends up just coming off incredibly pretentious with lots of complex babble. One thing, however, almost completely redeems this film; the cinematography. Included are lots of Aronofsky's trademark EXTREME close-ups, which gives a lot of the scenes more life. You also see some amazing shots where the camera starts upside down, seemingly under the ground, and as a vehicle speeds over it, it completely flips to a normal shot; VERY cool. And the 26th century story, while it never makes sense, and is never explained what is going on, is absolutely beautiful; you'll stare at awe at some of the effects here. In the end, however, The Fountain is a complete disaster; had Aronofsky not attempt to tell the most epic story ever, he may have had a good film on his hands. As it stands, however, it is nothing more than a good-looking film with a completely ridiculous story.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

MikeKNov 30, 2006

While the imagery is admittedly impressive at times, it simply cannot carry the weight of an overly ambitious, DRAGGING plotline. The movie transitions are abrupt, and the slow points truly crawl...to the point where you want to roll your While the imagery is admittedly impressive at times, it simply cannot carry the weight of an overly ambitious, DRAGGING plotline. The movie transitions are abrupt, and the slow points truly crawl...to the point where you want to roll your eyes. Jackman does a great job, although for me Weisz was over dramatic and fake.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

KeithJNov 3, 2007

I think this movie might be better on a second viewing. I enjoy complex movies (my recent favorite is Pan's Labyrinth, for example); however, as I watched The Fountain, I really had little idea what was "real" (in the movie's I think this movie might be better on a second viewing. I enjoy complex movies (my recent favorite is Pan's Labyrinth, for example); however, as I watched The Fountain, I really had little idea what was "real" (in the movie's logic) and what wasn't. There are three storylines. There is a bizarre and fantastic one set in the past; then, we are transported to a bizarre and fantastic one in (I guess?) the distant future; then, we segue to a relatively normal one in approximately the present day. In retrospect, I think the present and future realities were "real", and the one set in the past was fiction/metaphor. However, as you go through the movie, if nobody tells you that, you have no firm ground to stand on; you spend your time trying to decipher the basics, not appreciating whatever truths it is trying to convey. I am tempted to rent the movie and watch it again, because I think I'd enjoy it more knowing what I know now. However, I feel compelled to give it a fairly low mark anyway, because I think it's a flaw of the movie that the viewer has to waste so much mental energy on unimportant things (which part is "real") that it takes away from the rest.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

MarkF.May 15, 2007

First off, my rating is VERY generous. Even if Aranofsky is considered a visionary, this is one of the darkest, most downbeat, isimplistic, yet incoherent messes of a "film" I've seen recently. I've heard from several college age First off, my rating is VERY generous. Even if Aranofsky is considered a visionary, this is one of the darkest, most downbeat, isimplistic, yet incoherent messes of a "film" I've seen recently. I've heard from several college age students that this is this generation's "2001". Well, if this is true, that's even more pathetic than this film is. I will admit that I only give Aronofsky's previous films a 6, so maybe you can go ahead and make fun of me now, but I've never clipped for any money or pretended that I had anything to share with you except for common sense.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

imilhoferDec 26, 2013

This film is too clever for its own good, and came across forced and disjointed. In all honesty, I had no idea what was happening for the majority of this corny film, and it wasn't a pleasant lack of understanding (Mulholland Drive), but aThis film is too clever for its own good, and came across forced and disjointed. In all honesty, I had no idea what was happening for the majority of this corny film, and it wasn't a pleasant lack of understanding (Mulholland Drive), but a lack of understanding that led me to question whether watching it was a good use of my time or not. Burstyn offered some class, and Aronofksy is blatantly talented, but here he pushed it too far, and produced a contrived hour and a half of nonsense, worsened by Rachel Weisz's sheer dullness.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

SpongeeeDec 8, 2006

Requiem was a classic, The Fountain is not. Bad story, script, sets, drama, music, camera work, even acting. Besides the cool galaxy/star images toward the end, the movie was an overall bore. Maybe Aranofsky took all the praise from Requiem Requiem was a classic, The Fountain is not. Bad story, script, sets, drama, music, camera work, even acting. Besides the cool galaxy/star images toward the end, the movie was an overall bore. Maybe Aranofsky took all the praise from Requiem to the head because he seemed to make this movie with no regard except for the fact that he thinks anything he does has to be good. Half the crew/and 1 actor were hold overs from Requiem...and Huge JACKman...I knew it was too good to be true when I saw the poster, but at least I gave it a shot.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

J-ShapAug 27, 2011

Aronofsky is adventurous in ways that many filmmakers are not. He is able to be bold, grab an idea by the horns and take it where he wants to, and choosing to do so in the methods he sees as the most clear. The Fountain is a misfire on thisAronofsky is adventurous in ways that many filmmakers are not. He is able to be bold, grab an idea by the horns and take it where he wants to, and choosing to do so in the methods he sees as the most clear. The Fountain is a misfire on this concept. It is a film disconnected from any sort of root (which is odd, given that trees show up a lot in it), the audience or it's own story. It has all of its interests into itself, but never bothers to actually care for what it's trying to do, because it's too busy thinking. Can't it just stop to smell the roses. Kubrick could do that.… Expand