TV Spot for The Fountain

[Huggo]

I saw this movie on opening day in the theaters and it was really good.

However, the tv spot advertises it to be just the kind of movie that it isn't. It makes it out to be an action movie when in fact it's more of a psychological mystery. If you had to compare it to any movie out there, I guess it could be easy enough to compare it to Donnie Darko. It's not absolutely dead-on like it, I just basically had the same feeling after watching it. (Namely, wow what a weird story, wtf just happened?)

It's a pretty good movie. I enjoyed it a lot, anybody else see it yet?

[Lockecole]

I saw this movie on opening day in the theaters and it was really good.

However, the tv spot advertises it to be just the kind of movie that it isn't. It makes it out to be an action movie when in fact it's more of a psychological mystery. If you had to compare it to any movie out there, I guess it could be easy enough to compare it to Donnie Darko. It's not absolutely dead-on like it, I just basically had the same feeling after watching it. (Namely, wow what a weird story, wtf just happened?)

It's a pretty good movie. I enjoyed it a lot, anybody else see it yet?

Brother just saw it last night, and he agreed, not anything like what it was presented as. He said he didnt want to spoil it, but it was kinda mind-boggling, really hard to follow but in a good way. Probably have to see it again to really grasp a lot of what was happening.

[Serif]

That movie was nothing like Donnie Darko.

If you are into Eastern Philosophy or their way of thought, this movie should interest you.

Also, I never got the sense of an action flick from the trailers. If you know anything about Darren Aronofsky you would know this. He is not one to make an action flick to please the critics or the general community.

I am going to see this movie again probably sometime this week but I understood it for the most part. It is one of those movies when the credits roll, you sit in awe and try to realize what has just happened and then you drive home realizing the brilliance of the movie.

[Lbelle]

I've wanted to see The Fountain forever, so I'm probably going to go see it sometime in the next coming weeks. I did think it would be kind of action-y, but learning that it's not doesn't turn me off it at all. Can't wait!

[Btight]

I didn't find the trailer to this movie to be misleading at all... Went and saw the movie and it was absolutely brilliant. If you like to think, analyze, and question what you're viewing then this is a must-see. Otherwise, stay far, far away.

[Huggo]

I didn't mean it was like Donnie Darko in plotline. More like it's similar in the way, as Btight put it, you have to analyze and think about the story. It's not completely spelled out for you, that's what I meant.

[Wildman]

I was excited to see this movie and was dissapointed when I actually saw it. I still don't know how the damn orbs floating towards the dying stair fit in. Was it all in the dudes head or what?

[Btight]

I was excited to see this movie and was dissapointed when I actually saw it. I still don't know how the damn orbs floating towards the dying stair fit in. Was it all in the dudes head or what?

Spoiler Warning!

Although there has been a lot of controvery about this part of the film, I can say with some degree of certainty that no, it was not all in his head. While the 16th century version of their story was indeed just that, a story, I believe the 26th century version actual takes place. Evidences to support this idea:

-After the death of his wife he vigorously works in his lab to combat aging and eventually death itself.
-The tree in the orb is not the tree of life, but the tree that was planted over his wife's tomb (the scene after the funeral).
-The baldness can also be explained if the 26th century version was literal because if he had indeed conquered aging as he set out to do, the baldness would be a side effect of everlasting life (hair grows as a result of cell death).
-His hand still has the same tattoo of his wedding ring that he gave himself the day he found out his wife died.
-He is traveling to the nebula that his wife had told him of, where he believes (as she elaborated on further, the ancient Mayans did) that the nebula is the afterlife, a place where you go to be reborn. It is his actual attempt to bring her there to have her be reborn.

Then of course there are obvious problems with the ideal of a literal 26th century version as opposed to merely a symbolic one. One of the most prominent problems with the idea is that the scenes parallel almost too closely their life in the 21st century (i.e. him eating pieces of the tree, talking to the tree, trying to get it to stay alive until he can get to the nebula, etc.). But I believe much of this can be attributed to the fact that he has gone slightly psychotic in his hundreds of years of travel. This can be evidenced by the fact that he is constantly hounded by visions of his wife and his past. He is constantly plagued with voices in his head, that are obviously not actually there.

Another main problem with this is that upon final arrival at the center of the nebula when he finally realizes that he is powerless to bring his wife back and the nebula/star system super novas (I'm no astronomer, so I'm not sure if that is the correct term... Basically it blows up), while he is torn to shreds and more or less annhilated by the explosion, the tree seems to flourish slightly before the screen fades to black. Now this can be interpreted one of two ways. The first being that with his death and final acceptance, he can let go of his longing for his wife's memory and her being with him together in this life, and finally join her in death, where they would truly be together forever. If in fact the 26th century version was symbolic, then the tree (symbolizing his wife) would make sense to flourish with his death (ideoligical death, moreover the final understanding that his wife is gone forever). However the tree's flourishing can also just be seen as a mere spectacal of lights in the final explosion that also kills Tommy.

Besides those two main things, people have also ventured that his ability to "fly" or levitate would point to the 26th century version being symbolic, but I propose that it is merely due to the fact that he is travelling through space at a very rapid pace. As such, it is quite possible that there would be lower than normal gravity fields and make things such as his air maneuvers possible. Then someone countered with the fact that the pond stays securely in itself, which supports the fact that there is in fact a gravitational force acting on the orb. It is possible however that the gravitational force acting on the orb is somewhat less than that of earth's gravity (9.81 meters per second squared) but still somewhat higher than what is necessary to maintain pressure on the pool of water, and keep it in a static form.

Even though I have formed my opinion on the matter, I believe Aronofsky did not want us to be able to say for certain whether or not the 26th century version actually took place, or if it was merely symbolic. The one thing that still troubles me today is his obvious inclusion of Hinduism into the film... I'm not exactly sure why it's there, but it is. It's possible that it's supporting the symbolic version of the 26th century, as one of Hinduism's basic tenets is peace and understanding, but I'm still really trying to work that out.

However you look at it really, it is a brilliant film. I find people who say they didn't like it merely didn't have the cognative capacity to understand it, or even attempt to understand it.

(P.S. If there are typos/grammatical errors, I don't care I'm not proofing a damn forum post, lol)

[Wildman]

Oh i liked the movie, but was dissapointed as I said. Also as I say I was confused about the trip to the nebula. From the previews I was under the impression that they had indeed found the tree of life in the 16th century and the movie would detail their life throughout time.

As the trialers gave this impression to most viewers, I was dissapointed by the 26th century scenes and how they actually fit into the movie whether or not it was real or another "story" as was the 16th century plot.

After seeing this movie I had quite a long discussion with my bro trying to understand this part of the movie and I appreciate you thoughts on this part of the movie also.