So early last week I watched Pan's Labyrinth (this isn't about that movie, I might chat that one up later) and prior to that movie there was a preview for The Fountain. The preview looked like it might be interesting, so I added it to my Netflix queue and moved it to the top (I never seem to decrease the size of my Netflix queue, it only seems to grow larger and larger as I add more stuff than I watch). So "The Fountain" shows up and I watch that. Let me just say what a complete waste of my time. I normally don't do spoilers when talking about movies, but if you plan on watching The Fountain stop reading now, because I'm seriously going to spoil some stuff. The Fountain is all over the place. It takes place in three different time periods. The past, the present and future. Here's the thing though. In the movie the future is actually the present the our present is the past and our past is actually a book. Make sense? No? It just barely makes sense to me and I watched the movie. How they conned Hugh Jackman into doing this movie I'll never know. I get how they got Rachel Weisz, she's apparently married to the director or something and probably felt like she had to take one for the team.
Let's see, where to start with the absurdity. So the guy in the future is in a space ship. And it's a big glass ball with a small plot of land (looks to be about 50 feet in diameter)which has a tree in it and Hugh Jackman. Evidently some places within the big glass ball have no gravity and other parts (like where the ground and tree are) do. Nothing about the "space ship" makes sense. Someone obviously thought this would make for some cool imagery and went with it. After watching the movie I was so confused about what I just watched that I watched the hour of special features on the disc. Too bad they don't actually explain much during this, but they do explain why they choose a see through space ship. And it's because "there's nothing that says it can't be like that." Uhh, great guys. What makes it go? I don't see any engines. It's a big see through ball. I don't see any air recyclers. I don't see any lights although there's always enough light somehow, which I guess we're suppose to believe this bright light is coming from the nebula he's flying through. And where's his food come from, oh wait, we see him eating bark from the tree every so often.
So how nuts is this movie? Hugh Jackman is Tomas, the guy in the future in the bubble (they don't mention what year it is in the future, you just get the impression it's a good while into the future). Anyway, Tomas in the past (our present) was married to Izzy (Rachel) who is dying of a brain tumor that's evidently inoperable. Tomas works in some facility studying ways to cure brain tumors. The wife meanwhile is writing a book about a dude in the past from Spain that went looking for the "Tree of Life" (a.k.a. the fountain of youth). This guy in the flashbacks of the past looks amazingly like Tomas. And the queen that sends him on the mission looks amazingly like Izzy.
When Tomas experiments on a monkey with a brain tumor (our present), he concocts a formula that just happens to reverse the aging effect. The tumor though is unaffected so Tomas discards this incredible discovery to continue looking for something to save his wife (later we find out it does decrease the tumor, but by that point it's too late for Izzy). All through the movie it's jumping around in time, showing bits and pieces from all three time periods. Here's where it gets weird. A lot of stuff is left out and you have to put together the pieces of what happens yourself, but the gist is Izzy dies, is buried out in the country, and Tomas plants a seed where she died. At some point Tomas must invoke the procedure that reverses the aging process, because that's supposedly him in the future in the bubble. Then we're suppose to believe that the tree in the space ship contains the essence of Izzy, and that's the tree that grew from the seed he planted at her grave. Did I mention that he eats part of the bark from the tree daily? The movie tries to explore this this whole idea that through death we transform into something else "amazing". And we eventually learn Tomas is taking the tree to a dying star so that when it goes nova he and the tree will be together and become part of the new galaxy / life that comes from that star.
What's wrong with the movie besides the obvious? Well, the budget is lower than they wanted, so it's sparse. There aren't a lot of different sets shown. And the stuff in the past is always in the dark. In fact, in the beginning of the movie it's almost impossible to make out what's going on because it's so dark. And if I hadn't had subtitles on I wouldn't have been able to make out what anyone was saying. I will say this. Take out all the bad crap and the execution, and I have to admit I at least liked the idea for the story. Didn't like how they executed it, where they went with the story, or what they were selling as the message though. It would have been better in my mind to have the story focus on him realizing that without the possibility of dying that he can never really live. I can't believe I wasted my time watching it and I can't believe I wasted this much time writing about how much I disliked it. But if this saves anyone else from making the mistake I did in watching it, it'll be worth it.
6 comments:
i haven't seen this yet, but if it's as weird as you say it is... i'll probably love it!
interested to know what you think of pan's labyrinth. i loved it!! (what does that tell you?)
This is one of the best films I have seen in the past few years, especially on the studio side of things. Infinitely better executed and less flawed than Pan's Lab in both filmmaking and screenwriting (to look at it fundamentally and objectively). Fountain is somewhat hit or miss with some individuals, however: Sometimes good, specific art is very much that way and this is a philosopher's film. Fountain was also not marketed well or properly. I also found it to be far more impactful in theater (powerful soundtrack) and on second watch given Aronofsky's style. I'd suggest Requiem for a Dream but I think it would overwhelm you.
http://jessicastover.com/entry.php?id=627
http://jessicastover.com/entry.php?id=621
Anyway, this is hardly the kind of movie you "save" someone from. "Save" people from the ridiculous spectacle that comes out over the summer, not movies that make one think, and affect different people on different levels. You know?
Not exactly sure why you felt you needed to link to JSto as a supporting argument, her opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight with me since in the past I've found myself seriously at odds with some of the stuff Jessica has said (and it doesn't look like this is going to be any different).
jm: Infinitely better executed and less flawed than Pan's Lab in both filmmaking and screenwriting (to look at it fundamentally and objectively).
I think you meant to say to look at it "subjectively" instead of "fundamentally and objectively". In the end it's just your opinion. Just as that's all mine is. We'll just have to disagree on that point. That said, I personally found so many screenwriting flaws with The Fountain that I just couldn't get past them and enjoy the movie. I didn't have that problem with Pan's Labyrinth at all. Possibly because it's a completely different type of movie. Unless you really believe in magic, fairies and a underworld ruled by a benevolent mystical entity then the going in position on Pan's Labyrinth is that it's a fairy tale and the rules for fairy tale stories are different from those for science fiction stories. And I think you have to agree that The Fountain is more of a sci fi story than a fantasy one.
jm: "Save" people from the ridiculous spectacle that comes out over the summer, not movies that make one think, and affect different people on different levels.
I'll give you this point. The movie did make me think about how anyone involved thought the idea of the glass ball space ship was a good idea. Honestly, if the future stuff had been even slightly more realistic instead of this excuse for visual imagery I would have liked the movie a lot better. I just couldn't get past the that one aspect of the film. Especially since they keep coming back to it and it's in your face over and over again.
Like I said in the post though, the idea behind the movie I liked. And part of the reason I didn't like the movie itself is that I felt they could have done so much more with the story.
What I think would have been the most interesting part of the film is completely left out. Once he's completely consumed by grief, what possesses him to undertake a procedure that will make him have to live with those feelings forever? All we get the his "Death is a disease, and I will cure it" line. Great, that's still not going to change the fact that his wife at that point is dead unless he honestly believes he can bring the dead back to life (and if that's the case then maybe this really is a fantasy story). No, the more I think about it those pieces they left out were probably left out intentionally, because there wouldn't be any logical way to explain how that part happens otherwise.
I mean, did the secret of eternal life get out? Was the Earth overrun after a generation as no one died? Did the Earth exhaust all of it's natural resources when no one ever died anymore? And when did they invent bubble spaceships?
Not having those things explained to me is just bad storytelling no matter how I look at it. And all this is merely my opinion. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm glad you were able get something out of the film.
with regard to the fountain. i read somewhere that the story only really takes place in the present, and that the past and future are merely part of her writings. this would explain the fact that she uses her own and jackman's image to personify the characters of those timezones. this sounds like one of those movies that is completely open to interpretation. it will confuse some and make others think they are very clever simply because they got something out of it.
...this is a philosopher's film.
actually everyone is a philosopher. everyone has their own slant concerning life, belief and reality - so saying that about this film is pointless. this is no more a philosopher's film than the one i watched with my kids at the w/e. they each got something different from that movie(rise of the silver surfer). one picked up on the fact that sometimes people do bad things but that doesn't make them bad people, another picked up on ben grimm's appearance and how people react to him even though he's no different to the others inside.
yes, have your opinion but don't say that someone else is wrong just because they don't over analyse things the same way you do.
i found pan's lab to be a terrificly moving piece of art about love, fear, death and personal sacrifice - the filmaking and screenplay were spot on for the story that was being told.
it sounds to me like you just didn't understand it! ;-)
Um, James, the "jm" comment is from Jess.
Capt Sawyer: Um, James, the "jm" comment is from Jess.
Humph. Well then, Don't I look even more like the complete idiot than usual then.
I guess a "Hi Jess" is in order. Sorry about the linkage comment then since I see no problem with linking to your own text on the subject (I will say I'm not sure how I was suppose to know it was her).
Post a Comment