Author Topic: The Fountain - A MAF REVIEW -- Possible Spoilers (Read 4896 times)

MrAngryFace · « **on:** May 21, 2007, 03:55:19 PM »

The Fountain or How I was tricked into an emo, but solid movie.

I heard about it through conversations with friends. I went to the store and read the back of the case:

Quote

Yesterday, today, tomorrow. Past, present, future. Through time and space, one man embarks on a bold 1000-year odyssey to defeat humankind's most indomitable foe: Death. Hugh Jackman plays that man, devoted to one woman (Rachel Weisz) and determined to protect her from forces that threaten her existence. His quest leads him to a Tree of Life...and to an adventure into eternity. Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream) directs, continuing his string of imaginative, involving filmmaking with a tale alive with ideas and filled with astonishing vistas. "Not many films can blow your mind and break your heart at the same time, but this one will" (Drew McWeeny, Ain't It Cool News).

Little did I know that I was about to watch one of the most depressing movies of the year. This movie isn't about an ACTUAL 1000-year odyssey. Fans of the films will balk at this criticism explaining the reason for this description in ways one could only understand having watched the film. Which makes it a BAD DESCRIPTION.

This movie is actually an emotionally manipulative piece propelled by an excellent use of imagery and sound, and ultimatly boils down to the two-hour long catharsis of a man who has lost someone dear to him. Granted the acting IS really good; all of the emotions seem real, but the way the plot plays out makes the use of the main emotion SAD seem very utilitarian in the way of plot development. Ultimately for the story it is more about the goal than it is the journey. The time spent in between is miserable for the viewer as they are forced to watch and empathize with the main character as things slowly, but predictably fall apart. A good third of the film is pretty baffling until the end when you realize that all aspects of the movie represent the same entirely mental process for the main character.

At the end of the day I liked the movie, but it IS emotionally manipulative and the marketing DOES lure the viewer into an experience that isn't universally appreciated. I happened to like it primarily for the cinematography and score. The main story is fine and the acting is great but the subject matter is not something I prefer to dwell on because its EMO. Stumbling upon it 20 dollars in was kind of annoying. Fans of the movie can scream FoC all you want at me (see Pan's Labrynth review from FoC) but im on point here. Note that it does not get dinged for 2 because of this. It gets dinged for 2 because of the transparency of the central plot and the fact that the movie seems tainted by this manufactured effort to make the viewer feel like shit.

Sorry Emo Kids, I don't need to feel like crap to feel alive. Gimme Weekend at Bernies.

cubicle47b · « **Reply #1 on:** May 21, 2007, 04:19:18 PM »

The movie is certainly manipulative but the ending and the message it contains is supposed to make you feel really good, not bad.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #2 on:** May 21, 2007, 04:20:35 PM »

I was supposed to see a 1000-year odyssey too!

The movie is about accepting death, not feeling ok about it. Acceptance isn't the same as 'feeling good'. Im pretty sure the main character still felt like crap.

cubicle47b · « **Reply #3 on:** May 21, 2007, 04:29:27 PM »

The feeling good part was the "death as an act of creation" idea that the director wanted you to buy into.

TVC15 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 21, 2007, 04:32:31 PM »

I'm just upset that it's not actually about a guy that lives forever. WTF is with the misleading marketing for both this and Pan's Labyrinth?

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #5 on:** May 21, 2007, 04:38:33 PM »

Quote from: TVC 15 on May 21, 2007, 04:32:31 PM

I'm just upset that it's not actually about a guy that lives forever. WTF is with the misleading marketing for both this and Pan's Labyrinth?

Well, movie studios want to make money. What's gonna make for a better advert and get more fannies in the seats, a movie about accepting death or a movie about a 1,000 year journey of an immortal? Ok, never mind considering Fountain's BO numbers, but you get my drift.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #6 on:** May 21, 2007, 04:40:46 PM »

Quote from: cubicle47b on May 21, 2007, 04:29:27 PM

The feeling good part was the "death as an act of creation" idea that the director wanted you to buy into.

Maybe if I was drunk I woulda bought into it. That just suggests that the viewer has to be of a certain opinion on death to fully appreciate the movie, which is again, not something the marketing suggests.

'The movie to watch if you think life is only the beginning!'

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #7 on:** May 21, 2007, 04:42:02 PM »

i'm guessing the creators/publishers/marketers want the LORD OF THE RINGS crowd and fantasy nerds -- see exhibit F: FoC -- to give the movie a chance and hope that they'll dig it once they discover that although the movie isn't what the back-of-the-box blurb indicates, it's still quite good. basically, "we made a good movie with fantasy elements and visuals, but you won't see it unless LOL DRAGONZ N ORCS N ELVES LOL so here's some marketing bait-and-switch."

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #8 on:** May 21, 2007, 04:44:00 PM »

isn't this darren aronofsky, btw? seems a bit, well, shallow for him.

demi · « **Reply #9 on:** May 21, 2007, 04:49:20 PM »

TUCK EVERLASTING DID IT BETTER

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #10 on:** May 21, 2007, 04:54:57 PM »

Well the whole 'Astronaut' sequence as its called is very abstract and im sure some depth can be found in it somewhere, but I dont think this movie will be the kind of movie most normal people like me will enjoy beyond whats right in front of my face. Because in terms of subject matter, near the end especially, this isn't really a movie for pratical folk, but rather a movie for emo hippies.

cubicle47b · « **Reply #11 on:** May 21, 2007, 04:58:35 PM »

I'm not arguing that the marketing wasn't misleading, just that in this case the director's intent wasn't to make you feel like shit (as opposed to Requiem for a Dream). edit: I agree that most people wouldn't feel good after watching this movie, though.

I don't know if these new age ideas are meant to be taken seriously or pretty concepts to distract and comfort you (leaning toward the latter).

GilloD · « **Reply #12 on:** May 21, 2007, 05:04:42 PM »

The single common critical thread in reviews of this film have been that it's "shallow". On the other hand, we're busy excoriating films for being "pretentious". Which is it, fuckwads? I adored The Fountain for a plain-faced look at the duality of love and life, loss, desire, yadda yadda. This, to me, is the prime example of critics just looking for something to shit on.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #13 on:** May 21, 2007, 05:06:03 PM »

I dunno if its shallow so much as its given too much time to tread ground thats increasingly familiar an hour in.

GilloD · « **Reply #14 on:** May 21, 2007, 05:10:49 PM »

Quote from: Bubblicious Panda on May 21, 2007, 05:06:03 PM

I dunno if its shallow so much as its given too much time to tread ground thats increasingly familiar an hour in.

I could dig up my GAF mini-review, but I saw it as 3 mediations on a familiar theme. There's that Taoist idea that things exist only in opposition to one another, in this case life and death. In the case of the Conquistador, he loves life too much and is punished. For Doctor Tom, he is too concerned with death to love his life and the life he has with Izzy. For Spaceman Tom, he accepts the union of life and death, having lived both and ultimately resigns himself to the beauty and necessity of, ahem, "the circle of life".

That said, the "familar" nature of the film comes across as necessary, no?

TVC15 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 21, 2007, 05:12:27 PM »

Quote from: GilloD on May 21, 2007, 05:04:42 PM

The single common critical thread in reviews of this film have been that it's "shallow". On the other hand, we're busy excoriating films for being "pretentious". Which is it, fuckwads? I adored The Fountain for a plain-faced look at the duality of love and life, loss, desire, yadda yadda. This, to me, is the prime example of critics just looking for something to shit on.

But I was under the impression it was a science fiction film. I mean, maybe it's a good movie (I haven't seen it yet), but if I went to the theatre expecting a sci-fi/fantasy movie and got what MAF is describing, I'd be pretty unsatisfied.

GilloD · « **Reply #16 on:** May 21, 2007, 05:13:55 PM »

Quote from: TVC 15 on May 21, 2007, 05:12:27 PM

Quote from: GilloD on May 21, 2007, 05:04:42 PM
The single common critical thread in reviews of this film have been that it's "shallow". On the other hand, we're busy excoriating films for being "pretentious". Which is it, fuckwads? I adored The Fountain for a plain-faced look at the duality of love and life, loss, desire, yadda yadda. This, to me, is the prime example of critics just looking for something to shit on.

But I was under the impression it was a science fiction film. I mean, maybe it's a good movie (I haven't seen it yet), but if I went to the theatre expecting a sci-fi/fantasy movie and got what MAF is describing, I'd be pretty unsatisfied.

That's fair. I suppose I had enough advance warning to know that I was going to see a "human drama" and not a Sci-Fi flick.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #17 on:** May 21, 2007, 05:15:29 PM »

Like I said, in order to enjoy this movie you need to already be comfortable and even accepting of the message delivered at the end of the movie. Which means the movie will not be satisfying for A LOT of people.

If studios decide to start duping entire movie-going demographics into seeing movies they would never enjoy... I mean thats just messed up.

Hate to bring up ol Evangelion again, but this is the same thing that happened in episode 25/26 of the series. Fans expected giant robots, fans got a bunch of people clapping around shinji saying congratulations. I DO respect this movie as it must have been satisfying for the director, much like Evangelion was satisfying for ITS director, however, the viewers do play a major part in the life cycle of a feature film.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #18 on:** May 21, 2007, 05:40:35 PM »

Sounds like you guys don't get the film

Ichiru:
The Fountain (Aronofsky, 2006) - 9.5/10

Every so often, say once or twice a decade, a film comes along that just doesn't jive with, or play by, the rules that Hollywood has told us they "should" follow. These films often get mediocre-to-bad reviews initially, and fade fast from theatres. Sometimes, years later, people start re-visiting these films, and in very rare cases, they eventually become known as masterpieces; visionary films that were ahead of their time. In the science fiction genre, the two most well known examples of this phenomenon are 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Blade Runner. Darren Aronofsky's latest film, The Fountain, seems like it may be destined to the same fate as those legendary films.

The plot synopsis is simple and well known by now: a man and a woman seek to find the key to immortality, and live together forever. The film jumps from 16th Century Spain to the present to 500 years in the future, and deals heavily with various religious themes, from Mayan to Judeo-Christian beliefs. So, is it a science fiction movie, or a love story, or a time-travel tale, or a film about religion and faith? The answer is none of the above. While Aronofsky's film dabbles in all these fields, it is ultimately a heart-wrenchingly beautiful movie about learning to let your loved ones go after they pass on.

The movie is absolutely stunning in every regard. Hugh Jackman delivers the performance of his career, and his chemistry with Rachel Weisz is what anchors the entire film. Aronosky's script is deceptively simple, yet completely engaging. His direction proves to be more than up to the task, and one can tell that this is the work of a great filmmaker, driven by passion. The costumes, set design, lighting, and especially cinematography are outstanding. The film is incredibly big on visual themes, namely darkness vs. light, and these motifs are pulled off with class and skill. The special effects, and their lack of CGI, are a sight that has to be seen to be believed.

Finally, the film is woven together with Clint Mansell's haunting score. This is easily the most impressive piece of work heard in a motion picture in the past decade. The musical cues are moving, unforgettable, and hit their highs at precisely the right moments. There is a scene at the end of the film that stands out as the most amazing blend of music and visuals witnessed in recent memory. Easily his best work so far, Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain is a towering achievement. Highly recommended.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #19 on:** May 21, 2007, 05:45:45 PM »

Sounds like you're a moron:

THE FOUNTAIN
A film review by David N. Butterworth
Copyright 2006 David N. Butterworth
** (out of ****)
Tommy Creo (Hugh Jackman) is a skilled neurosurgeon performing a little under-the-table animal experimentation in an effort to find a cure for the common cancer. "Death is a disease. There *is* a cure. And I *will* find it," he intones defiantly, not to be discouraged from this noblest of goals. His wife Izzy (Rachel Weisz) suffers a cancerous brain tumor and Tommy thereby feels his working late at the office is more than justified. His boss, Dr. Lillian Gruzetti (Ellen Burstyn), keeps telling the brain doc to go home, to be with his wife in her (waning) hours of need, but that's partly because Gruzetti's not convinced Tommy's research is going anywhere. Until, that is, Tommy remembers some plant extract his brain team once discovered in the dense Mayan jungles of New Spain and, spontaneously injecting it into a hapless gibbon's throbbing medulla oblongata, watches on "the first step on the road to awe" as the cancerous growth slowly retreats.

Meanwhile/previously/a thousand years hence a dashing conquistador (Hugh Jackman in a fetching combed marrion) searches the Amazon basin for the fabled "tree of life," that which once grew in the Garden of Eden and can grant all those who drink of its sap eternal life. His boss, Queen Isabella of Spain (Rachel Weisz), has promised the conquistador that, should he find this tree, then the two of them shall partake of its wondrous gifts together and henceforth be inseparable throughout all eternity.

Meanwhile/now/sometime in the future a baldheaded dreamer (Hugh Jackman, looking not unlike Kevin Spacey in some scenes, Jeff Goldblum in others) assumes the lotus position, bounces about in a snow globe, eats bark, tattoos himself with the nib of a calligrapher's pen, talks to trees, and generally engages in a lot of silly poppycock while being partied by an art director (make that *four* art directors--French ones) not afraid to go a wee bit over budget.

Thus director Darren Aronofsky ("Pi," "Requiem for a Dream") juggles three separate-but-interweaving storylines in his latest picture, a metaphysical journey (of sorts) that engages as often as it wearies. It's a hard sell that's for sure, this action/romance/sci- fi/drama, unique and lovely to look at one minute, painfully pretentious the next. Any one of these chapters might have worked better in their entirety (save perhaps for the Xibalban dreamscape visual feasts; I was reminded of Tarsem Singh's "The Cell" with Jennifer Lopez), but spliced together they demand more attention than is necessarily appropriate.

Still, there's no knocking the performances. Weisz brings good grace and tenderness to the role of Izzy--you'd expect nothing less from the Oscar(r)-winning co-star of "The Constant Gardener"--but what you might not expect is Jackman's sincere, commanding approach to the material. Aronofsky might overplay his hand once too often but Jackman rarely does. He's convincing and engaging, hard edged and vulnerable, not afraid to take risks. Adding to the whole--and wholly strange-- experience is Clint Mansell's memorable score: it's both compelling and evocative, a third player in every sense.

Many will extract real meaning from the film; others will simply call its bluff and walk away empty headed. I personally would much prefer to revisit Jackman and Weisz in a project a little more worthy of their obvious talents, a little more worthy than "The Fountain."

See, PD? I can do it too.

TVC15 · « **Reply #20 on:** May 21, 2007, 05:48:36 PM »

PD, the movie had a split down the middle reception:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_fountain/

50% exactly.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #21 on:** May 21, 2007, 05:49:13 PM »

Ichiru>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>David N. Butterworth

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #22 on:** May 21, 2007, 05:51:28 PM »

I really really loved The Fountain, but the advertising is SO misleading that it actually made the movie harder to understand (because I kept trying to fit the narrative I was seeing into the narrative I was given). Same with Pan's...stupid Hollywood.

BlueTsunami · « **Reply #23 on:** May 21, 2007, 06:04:44 PM »

I haven't watched this movie yet but I'm happy I read your review MAF. I would have been puzzled by not seeing some of the Sci-Fi themes that was marketed.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #24 on:** May 21, 2007, 06:51:38 PM »

wow, pd, you're a fucking idiot -- that's an ign-grade review of a movie. you discuss everything superficial about the movie, yet completely FAIL to analyze it. go rewatch unforgiven.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #25 on:** May 21, 2007, 06:53:01 PM »

Quote from: Professor Prole on May 21, 2007, 06:51:38 PM

wow, pd, you're a fucking idiot -- that's an ign-grade review of a movie. you discuss everything superficial about the movie, yet completely FAIL to analyze it. go rewatch unforgiven.

I didn't write it. Ichiru did

Didn't you see his name above the post?

Robo · « **Reply #26 on:** May 21, 2007, 06:55:04 PM »

Actually, it was Solo:
http://www.evilbore.com/forum/index.php?topic=5413.msg215119;topicseen#msg215119

And I think in the context of his big ol' thread of reviews, not going into extreme depth is forgivable.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #27 on:** May 21, 2007, 06:56:08 PM »

Whoops. It's a shame I can't edit my posts $:-\$

etiolate · « **Reply #28 on:** May 21, 2007, 06:59:04 PM »

Quote from: Professor Prole on May 21, 2007, 04:44:00 PM

isn't this darren aronofsky, btw? seems a bit, well, shallow for him.

yes and yes =/

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #29 on:** May 21, 2007, 08:57:40 PM »

I think like Children of Men, people are forgiving its fundamental flaws as a movie and clinging to the idea because it made them feel.

Ichirou · « **Reply #30 on:** May 21, 2007, 09:15:45 PM »

Quote from: Michelle the Fibber on May 21, 2007, 05:49:13 PM

Ichiru>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>David N. Butterworth

I didn't write that review, Solo did. He writes in that sort of newspaper movie review style. If you look at my reviews in the film noir thread, you'll see that's not how I write.

EDIT: Here's the thread.

http://www.evilbore.com/forum/index.php?topic=7314.msg174276#msg174276

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #31 on:** May 21, 2007, 09:27:12 PM »

my review was awesome too f off haters BOOM

Ichirou · « **Reply #32 on:** May 21, 2007, 09:31:13 PM »

Quote from: Bubblicious Panda on May 21, 2007, 09:27:12 PM

my review was awesome too f off haters BOOM

I liked your review, it was more informative than Solo's.i

If you want to read a bad review, read PD's American History X review. "This movie is about racism. Racism is bad. This movie was powerful but I didn't like all the slow-motion. The end."

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #33 on:** May 21, 2007, 09:44:45 PM »

Yeah I already know his are bad. Unforgiven will forever be unforgiven.

Mr. Gundam · « **Reply #34 on:** May 21, 2007, 10:08:39 PM »

I still can't find this on Blu Ray anywhere :'(

I saw it in the theater, and actually liked it. But, I knew what to expect going in and I'd honestly rather go see a "depressing art film" than some big time Hollywood blockbuster. Go figure.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #35 on:** May 21, 2007, 10:16:25 PM »

Dont get me wrong, I liked it well enough, I still own it.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #36 on:** May 22, 2007, 12:44:28 AM »

Quote from: Ichirou on May 21, 2007, 09:31:13 PM

Quote from: Bubblicious Panda on May 21, 2007, 09:27:12 PM
my review was awesome too f off haters BOOM

I liked your review, it was more informative than Solo's.i

If you want to read a bad review, read PD's American History X review. "This movie is about racism. Racism is bad. This movie was powerful but I didn't like all the slow-motion. The end."

I was tired.

My Sleepers review is pretty nice tho

Ichirou · « **Reply #37 on:** May 22, 2007, 12:56:45 AM »

Quote from: Michelle the Fibber on May 22, 2007, 12:44:28 AM

Quote from: Ichirou on May 21, 2007, 09:31:13 PM
Quote from: Bubblicious Panda on May 21, 2007, 09:27:12 PM
my review was awesome too f off haters BOOM

I liked your review, it was more informative than Solo's.i

If you want to read a bad review, read PD's American History X review. "This movie is about racism. Racism is bad. This movie was powerful but I didn't like all the slow-motion. The end."

I was tired.

My Sleepers review is pretty nice tho

Meh.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #38 on:** May 22, 2007, 01:02:39 AM »

Ichirou · « **Reply #39 on:** May 22, 2007, 01:06:11 AM »

You didnt even touch on the fact that the movie is supposedly based on a true story but there's a lot of evidence that the author of the original novel faked everything.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #40 on:** May 22, 2007, 01:07:03 AM »

Even Wikipedia entries are better reviews than yours, PD

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #41 on:** May 22, 2007, 01:07:32 AM »

I didn't even know that. My review was just about the movie anyway. :'(

Ichirou · « **Reply #42 on:** May 22, 2007, 01:16:46 AM »

Quote from: Michelle the Fibber on May 22, 2007, 01:07:32 AM

I didn't even know that. My review was just about the movie anyway. :'(

Please read a book on film theory or something. Try to educate yourself before you start writing reviews. You shouldn't try reviewing something unless you can offer some insight into what you're reviewing.

I recommend these two books:

How to Read a Film by James Monaco
http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Film-Multimedia-Language/dp/019503869X/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1_rsrsrs0/002-8808577-4808848

The Major Film Theories by J.D. Andrew
http://www.amazon.com/Major-Film-Theories-Introduction-Galaxy/dp/0195019911/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/002-8808577-4808848

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #43 on:** May 22, 2007, 01:19:54 AM »

:'( :'( :'(

Guys I'm never posting again

Ichirou · « **Reply #44 on:** May 22, 2007, 01:21:39 AM »

You're not dumb, Michelle. You just don't know how to do anything more than give a surface reading of whatever it is you're reviewing. That's why I'm saying - educate yourself before you start talking about film in what's supposed to be an insightful way.

Solo · « **Reply #45 on:** May 22, 2007, 06:49:19 AM »

I didn't even post in this thread and somehow I got shit on. By Drinky no less, on how to write reviews. Lawlz. Anyways, fuck off, it may end up as my favorite movie of 2006 by the time its all said and done. Stick with Godzilla, MAF. Youll get what youre expecting there.

Also, you'll forgive me for not going into some in-depth analysis on the interwebs where Im sure to be hit with random trolling or stupid gifs within 2 posts. Im not getting paid, so its not worth the effort.

Anyways, fuck it. Time to go.

Ichirou · « **Reply #46 on:** May 22, 2007, 07:02:06 AM »

Quote from: Solo on May 22, 2007, 06:49:19 AM

I didn't even post in this thread and somehow I got shit on. By Drinky no less, on how to write reviews. Lawlz. Anyways, fuck off, it may end up as my favorite movie of 2006 by the time its all said and done. Stick with Godzilla, MAF. Youll get what youre expecting there.

I think Drinky only shit on your review because he thought PD wrote it.

Personally, I like your review style, I just thought MAF's gave a bit more insight into what the movie was about and how it impacted him.

Solo · « **Reply #47 on:** May 22, 2007, 07:16:45 AM »

I can do that too, but Ive always found going that route leads to threads like, well, this one.

Let's just say I had similar thoughts to MAF, but that they affected me in the opposite manner. I didnt think the movie was a downer at all. In fact, the overwhelming feeling I had afterwards is that its actually a film brimming with hope. I mean, if death is the road to enlightenment/eternal life, then what is there to be afraid of? Movies like this always divide people. Some will call it shallow and an exercise in style, others will say its pretentious garbage. Then theres a small faction, which I belong to on this particular film, who totally buys into what Aronofsky is selling. The movie pretty much hit all the perfect notes for me, and I loved all the symbolism present throughout the film. It wasnt subtle, but I dont think it was intended to be. Some have called it heavy handed, manipulative and blunt, but it feels honest to me. He may hit you over the head with a hammer, but he is genuine about it. And the last 10 minutes of the film are the most joygasmic Ive seen in a movie recently.

Blah

Ichirou · « **Reply #48 on:** May 22, 2007, 07:20:25 AM »

I wish you were a bit more blunt with your feelings in your review. I mentioned in this thread that your reviews read like newspaper movie reviews, which is good, but at the same time they feel a bit impersonal. It's nice to know how the movie impacted you personally. After reading what you wrote in your last post, combined with MAF's post, I'm more eager to see the movie now.

Solo · « **Reply #49 on:** May 22, 2007, 07:25:47 AM »

Just the little touches too, like Tommy always losing his ring, worked for me. I mean, he is constantly trying to fight off death, and a tree which never ages would have no rings, no? Then we he finally accepts death, voila, he finds his ring. Or more major things that come full circle, like the story of the Mayan god who believed a tree would burst out of his chest, and his soul becoming the sky, really affected me in a positive way. All things which I may have found pretentious or over the top with another filmmaker, but again, it all worked for me in Aronofsky's movie.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #50 on:** May 22, 2007, 09:17:14 AM »

Like I said, the movie demands you are like-minded with the films conclusion from the get-go to enjoy it. Half of everyone who sees it will find it depressing and probably not like it. The message and theme isnt what makes the movie seem honest, its the stellar performances by its actors.

So Drinky insults your review and I get insulted? That's pretty fucked up logic Solo. Go cry somewhere else.

Solo · « **Reply #51 on:** May 22, 2007, 10:06:07 AM »

How did I insult you? I didnt, and if perchance you thought I did, it was totally unintentional.

Anyways, at least we can agree on the performances - I never thought much of Jackman before 2006, but Scoop, The Prestige, and especially The Fountain have converted me to a fan. He is really good in this movie.

EDIT: The Godzilla remark, no doubt. My apologies, MAF.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #52 on:** May 22, 2007, 10:37:58 AM »

What's Scoop?

Solo · « **Reply #53 on:** May 22, 2007, 10:39:39 AM »

Woody Allen movie Jackman did with Scarlett Johannson. Movie isnt that great (for recent Allen stuff, I MUCH preferred Match Point, also with Johansson), but Jackman is good.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #54 on:** May 22, 2007, 10:40:47 AM »

Im actually not a big Scarlett fan, but Jackson and Bale are probably two of my favorite actors in hollywood these days.

Solo · « **Reply #55 on:** May 22, 2007, 10:42:43 AM »

Ive always been a Bale fan. Now that Ive recently become a Jackman one, Id love to see them do another movie together. Hell, they should have cast Jackman instead of Eckhart for Harvey Dent.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #56 on:** May 22, 2007, 10:43:07 AM »

They have really good chemistry, I agree.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #57 on:** May 22, 2007, 10:43:44 AM »

oh, come on. that review was a generic blurb that only discussed the superficial aspects of the movie. if i'd noted that you wrote it, i wouldn't have said anything because i would've known that you'd taken away more from the movie than what your brief rundown indicated. but when pd/michelle sells it as his own work, i can't imagine why i shouldn't assume it to be the complete compass of his experience -- he's just that willfully ignorant and/or contrarian.

Robo · « **Reply #58 on:** May 22, 2007, 10:45:29 AM »

Quote from: Ichirou on May 22, 2007, 01:16:46 AM

Quote from: Michelle the Fibber on May 22, 2007, 01:07:32 AM
I didn't even know that. My review was just about the movie anyway. :'(

Please read a book on film theory or something. Try to educate yourself before you start writing reviews. You shouldn't try reviewing something unless you can offer some insight into what you're reviewing.

I recommend these two books:

How to Read a Film by James Monaco
http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Film-Multimedia-Language/dp/019503869X/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1_rsrsrs0/002-8808577-4808848

The Major Film Theories by J.D. Andrew
http://www.amazon.com/Major-Film-Theories-Introduction-Galaxy/dp/0195019911/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/002-8808577-4808848

If I were to buy both of these books, which one would you suggest I read first?

Solo · « **Reply #59 on:** May 22, 2007, 10:50:35 AM »

Quote from: Professor Prole on May 22, 2007, 10:43:44 AM

oh, come on. that review was a generic blurb that only discussed the superficial aspects of the movie. if i'd noted that you wrote it, i wouldn't have said anything because i would've known that you'd taken away more from the movie than what your brief rundown indicated. but when pd/michelle sells it as his own work, i can't imagine why i shouldn't assume it to be the complete compass of his experience -- he's just that willfully ignorant and/or contrarian.

Fair enough, heir Drinky. I dont know what PD is doing copying and pasting shit anyways.

I can assure you, the Unforgiven review is totally his, and nothing he copied from anyone I know. I know people with bad taste, but none who missed the point by so much as PD did.

News:

Author Topic: The Fountain - A MAF REVIEW -- Possible Spoilers (Read 4896 times)