list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Fountain on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Fountain/250784/default.aspx Title: The Fountain
Year: 2006
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Plot: Requiem for a Dream director Darren Aronofsky switches gears from drug-induced urban malaise to abstract science fiction with this time-tripping symbolic tale of a man's thousand-year quest to save the woman he loves. Moving between representational stories and images, this meditation on life and death focuses on the concept of the mythical Tree of Life that is said to bestow immortality to all who drink of its sap. In one of the film's allegorical timelines, a 16th century Spanish conquistador played by Hugh Jackman sets out to find the tree in order to save his queen (Rachel Weisz) from the Inquisition. Another conceptual story finds Jackman centuries later, struggling with mortality as a modern-day scientist desperately searching for the medical breakthrough that will save the life of his cancer-stricken wife, Izzi. The third and most abstract concept finds Jackman as a different incarnation of the same character-idea, this time questing for eternal life within the confines of a floating sphere transporting the aged Tree of Life through the depths of space. Still more avant-garde than his breakthrough film Pi, The Fountain finds Aronofsky almost completely abandoning conventional story structure in favor of something more cinematically abstract. Though the film was originally slapped with an R by the MPAA, Aronofsky & co. re-edited it to conform to a PG-13 rating. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 71
Number of Lists: 67
Number of blog posts: 39
Number of discussion threads: 12
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:02:08 GMTThe Fountain2006Darren Aronofsky<a href=/films/140444/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Requiem for a Dream</a> director <a href="/players/P___235045/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Darren Aronofsky</a> switches gears from drug-induced urban malaise to abstract science fiction with this time-tripping symbolic tale of a man's thousand-year quest to save the woman he loves. Moving between representational stories and images, this meditation on life and death focuses on the concept of the mythical Tree of Life that is said to bestow immortality to all who drink of its sap. In one of the film's allegorical timelines, a 16th century Spanish conquistador played by <a href="/players/P___269258/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Hugh Jackman</a> sets out to find the tree in order to save his queen (<a href="/players/P___216376/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Rachel Weisz</a>) from the Inquisition. Another conceptual story finds Jackman centuries later, struggling with mortality as a modern-day scientist desperately searching for the medical breakthrough that will save the life of his cancer-stricken wife, Izzi. The third and most abstract concept finds Jackman as a different incarnation of the same character-idea, this time questing for eternal life within the confines of a floating sphere transporting the aged Tree of Life through the depths of space. Still more avant-garde than his breakthrough film <a href=/films/116036/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Pi</a>, The Fountain finds Aronofsky almost completely abandoning conventional story structure in favor of something more cinematically abstract. Though the film was originally slapped with an R by the MPAA, Aronofsky & co. re-edited it to conform to a PG-13 rating. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide71Tag Target (>10)6739123http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s250784.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Fountain/250784/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/mciocco/archive/2009/1/17/39625.aspx Post By: mciocco
Post To: mciocco Blog
Post Date: 1/17/2009 3:33:51 PM
Body: The Wrestler: When I was in high school, I joined the wrestling team. Now, amateur wrestling of the sort I was participating in is not the same thing you see on TV. That wrestling is usually called "professional" wrestling. Both sports have some things in common, but amateur wrestling is much closer to other martial arts while the professional variety is closer to the theatrical arts. Thus professional wrestling is usually referred to as "fake" wrestling... and no one was more guilty of that than us "real" wrestlers. Of course, in some ways, our griping was justified, but on the other hand, we were also rather ignorant of the realities of professional wrestling. There is still quite a bit of physicality involved in the sport, and over time, it can certainly take quite a toll. Bill Simmons gives an excellent description of this in his review: Pro wrestling chews up and spits out its athletes with grueling schedules, brutal physical punishment and a tacit understanding that performance enhancers are okay—as are greenies, sleeping pills and painkillers. These guys destroy their bodies, then their hearts give out and they die. Google the phrase "dead wrestlers," and your computer will start to smoke like an overtaxed car engine. From the first shots of The Wrestler, you see just how much of a toll it takes. The scene is simple - it just features our main character, Randy "The Ram" Robinson, sitting in a chair preparing for a match. It's instructive that you don't need to see his face or hear him talk about it to know just how broken down and battered The Ram is (even before the match). You can see it in his posture and you can hear it in his breathing. This represents most of what The Wrestler has gotten right, which is Mickey Rourke's performance (which is as excellent as everyone says and yes, the parallels between Randy and Mickey Rourke himself are eerie. I won't belabor the point any more than that becaues it's been covered so extensively by everyone else...) and the inside look at the professional wrestling world that drives everything. In the 1980s heyday of wrestling, Randy the Ram was at the top of his game, performing at venues like Madison Square Garden in front of sold out crowds. 20 years later, he's battered and broken, playing tiny venues, signing autographs at small, local conventions, and working part-time at a grocery store. He dreams of reclaiming past glory, but hits a roadblock when he has the inevitable heart attack after a match that exemplifies the physical nature of "fake" wrestling. The doctor is clear: if he keeps wrestling, he'll die. This forces Randy to take stock of his life, and he attempts to restablish a relationship with his daughter while expanding his existing friendship with a stripper. The stripper, played by Marisa Tomei, parallel's Randy's story. Like Randy, she has chosen a career with a shelf life, and she's nearing the point where she will no longer be able to rely on her body to make money. She seems better prepared to face this fact than Randy though, and has done a reasonable job separating her personal life from her professional life. Randy is not so lucky. How these relationships play out comprise the rest of the story. As previously hinted at, the wrestling bits in the movie are fantastic. Despite my high school activities, I never knew much about professional wrestling, but this movie feels right. It hits all the notes of authenticity, from the aformentioned brutality to the backstage banter and wrestling jargon. Unfortunately, the two main relationships described earlier in this review are less successful. Of course, reuniting with an abandoned daughter and a relationship with a stripper represent a mine field of potential cliche, so it's somewhat impressive that screenwriter Robert Siegel is able to navigate with reasonable success. He doesn't emerge unscathed, particularly with respect to the relationship with the daughter (not that stripper subplot is perfect), but he managed to avoid the most troubling cliches. The movie's themes come through loud and clear. It ends on the perfect note, and I'm hard pressed to think of a better ending shot this year, if not this decade. I loved director Darren Aronofsky's first film, the creepy, paranoid math-based thriller Pi, and was duly impressed by his manic drug addiction tale Requiem for a Dream. I was less impressed by his last effort, 2006's gorgeous looking The Fountain, a movie best described as an "interesting failure." In The Wrestler, Aronofsky has toned down the manic style that impressed so many, but in doing so he has lost none of his visual potency. Instead of the quick cuts and spastic style of his previous efforts, he takes a much simpler, almost verite aproach. The camera follows Randy the Ram in long unbroken takes, often from behind, giving you his view of the world almost as if we're watching a documentary. I can't say it's always fun, but it's usually compelling. In the end, it's not Aronofsky's best movie and it's not perfect, but it's an improvement over The Fountain and one of the better movies of this year. The simple story basically amounts to a small, character based drama, and at a high level, it proceeds mostly as you'd expect, but it's definitely worth a watch (even if it's just for Rourke's performance). I haven't watched profession wrestling in probably over 20 years, but that doesn't matter - the movie is compelling for other reasons, and can be interpreted in several ways. (Cross posted at my blog)
]]>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:33:51 GMTmcioccomciocco Blog1/17/2009 3:33:51 PMThe Wrestler: When I was in high school, I joined the wrestling team. Now, amateur wrestling of the sort I was participating in is not the same thing you see on TV. That wrestling is usually called "professional" wrestling. Both sports have some things in common, but amateur wrestling is much closer to other martial arts while the professional variety is closer to the theatrical arts. Thus professional wrestling is usually referred to as "fake" wrestling... and no one was more guilty of that than us "real" wrestlers. Of course, in some ways, our griping was justified, but on the other hand, we were also rather ignorant of the realities of professional wrestling. There is still quite a bit of physicality involved in the sport, and over time, it can certainly take quite a toll. Bill Simmons gives an excellent description of this in his review: Pro wrestling chews up and spits out its athletes with grueling schedules, brutal physical punishment and a tacit understanding that performance enhancers are okay&mdash;as are greenies, sleeping pills and painkillers. These guys destroy their bodies, then their hearts give out and they die. Google the phrase "dead wrestlers," and your computer will start to smoke like an overtaxed car engine. From the first shots of The Wrestler, you see just how much of a toll it takes. The scene is simple - it just features our main character, Randy "The Ram" Robinson, sitting in a chair preparing for a match. It's instructive that you don't need to see his face or hear him talk about it to know just how broken down and battered The Ram is (even before the match). You can see it in his posture and you can hear it in his breathing. This represents most of what The Wrestler has gotten right, which is Mickey Rourke's performance (which is as excellent as everyone says and yes, the parallels between Randy and Mickey Rourke himself are eerie. I won't belabor the point any more than that becaues it's been covered so extensively by everyone else...) and the inside look at the professional wrestling world that drives everything. In the 1980s heyday of wrestling, Randy the Ram was at the top of his game, performing at venues like Madison Square Garden in front of sold out crowds. 20 years later, he's battered and broken, playing tiny venues, signing autographs at small, local conventions, and working part-time at a grocery store. He dreams of reclaiming past glory, but hits a roadblock when he has the inevitable heart attack after a match that exemplifies the physical nature of "fake" wrestling. The doctor is clear: if he keeps wrestling, he'll die. This forces Randy to take stock of his life, and he attempts to restablish a relationship with his daughter while expanding his existing friendship with a stripper. The stripper, played by Marisa Tomei, parallel's Randy's story. Like Randy, she has chosen a career with a shelf life, and she's nearing the point where she will no longer be able to rely on her body to make money. She seems better prepared to face this fact than Randy though, and has done a reasonable job separating her personal life from her professional life. Randy is not so lucky. How these relationships play out comprise the rest of the story. As previously hinted at, the wrestling bits in the movie are fantastic. Despite my high school activities, I never knew much about professional wrestling, but this movie feels right. It hits all the notes of authenticity, from the aformentioned brutality to the backstage banter and wrestling jargon. Unfortunately, the two main relationships described earlier in this review are less successful. Of course, reuniting with an abandoned daughter and a relationship with a stripper represent a mine field of potential cliche, so it's somewhat impressive that screenwriter Robert Siegel is able to navigate with reasonable success. He doesn't emerge unscathed, particularly with respect to the relationship with the daughter (not that stripper subplot is perfect), but he managed to avoid the most troubling cliches. The movie's themes come through loud and clear. It ends on the perfect note, and I'm hard pressed to think of a better ending shot this year, if not this decade. I loved director Darren Aronofsky's first film, the creepy, paranoid math-based thriller Pi, and was duly impressed by his manic drug addiction tale Requiem for a Dream. I was less impressed by his last effort, 2006's gorgeous looking The Fountain, a movie best described as an "interesting failure." In The Wrestler, Aronofsky has toned down the manic style that impressed so many, but in doing so he has lost none of his visual potency. Instead of the quick cuts and spastic style of his previous efforts, he takes a much simpler, almost verite aproach. The camera follows Randy the Ram in long unbroken takes, often from behind, giving you his view of the world almost as if we're watching a documentary. I can't say it's always fun, but it's usually compelling. In the end, it's not Aronofsky's best movie and it's not perfect, but it's an improvement over The Fountain and one of the better movies of this year. The simple story basically amounts to a small, character based drama, and at a high level, it proceeds mostly as you'd expect, but it's definitely worth a watch (even if it's just for Rourke's performance). I haven't watched profession wrestling in probably over 20 years, but that doesn't matter - the movie is compelling for other reasons, and can be interpreted in several ways. (Cross posted at my blog) http://www.spout.com/groups/sci_fi/Re_Introduce_Yourself_a_place_to_say_Hi_and_make/4/38241/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 12/11/2008 11:46:38 AM
Body: You probably won't see me around here too often, but I do stop by to contribute (and learn) every once in a while. Everyone calls me 'seely', so giving out my first name is pointless. I live in the cold, cold town of Grand Rapids, MI. I'm 26, a recent college grad with a degree in Communication Arts and Science and hold down a couple jobs that I love. Favorite sci-fi film? Hard to say--I'm not that much of a 'sci-fi' buff so-to-speak, but I suppose the most recent one I've seen that I was captivated with was The Fountain. It admittedly borders onto historical fiction and drama, but I think there was enough sci-fi to warrant it a mention in the category. Continuing on the food theme, if I'm watching a movie I'm probably eating fries. I *love* french-fries, especially nice crispy Ore-Ida's. Seasoned waffle cut, extra crispy, beer battered, tots, they're all good! I keep an ample supply on hand for emergency movie watchin' snacks, along with an industrial sized bottle of ketchup. Oh I could go for some right now...
]]>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:46:38 GMTseelysci-fi12/11/2008 11:46:38 AMYou probably won't see me around here too often, but I do stop by to contribute (and learn) every once in a while. Everyone calls me 'seely', so giving out my first name is pointless. I live in the cold, cold town of Grand Rapids, MI. I'm 26, a recent college grad with a degree in Communication Arts and Science and hold down a couple jobs that I love. Favorite sci-fi film? Hard to say--I'm not that much of a 'sci-fi' buff so-to-speak, but I suppose the most recent one I've seen that I was captivated with was The Fountain. It admittedly borders onto historical fiction and drama, but I think there was enough sci-fi to warrant it a mention in the category. Continuing on the food theme, if I'm watching a movie I'm probably eating fries. I *love* french-fries, especially nice crispy Ore-Ida's. Seasoned waffle cut, extra crispy, beer battered, tots, they're all good! I keep an ample supply on hand for emergency movie watchin' snacks, along with an industrial sized bottle of ketchup. Oh I could go for some right now... http://www.spout.com/groups/Directors/Re_Directors_who_have_yet_to_make_their_masterpie/406/38193/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: Directors
Post Date: 12/10/2008 2:41:14 PM
Body: Funny, Aronofsky is the first I thought of too. I felt like Requiem for a Dream, although excellent, was too 'rough' to be a masterpeice, and had a lot of themes explored in similar ways in other films. The Fountain, which I also enjoyed, was however almost too ambitious. The task Aronofsky set out to accomplish was enourmous. Four seperate stories that are intertwined but are seperate? Huh? Exactly. He handled it with alplomb, but it was still too alienating and lofty of a concept for it to ever work in a way that would connect with every filmgoer. [quote user="Risselada"] I'm thinking maybe Darren Aronofsky. I know a lot of people consider Requiem for a Dream a modern masterpiece, but I think he could do better. I still have yet to see The Fountain, but I know there was enough dissention that it still can't have been a masterpiece. [/quote]
]]>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:41:14 GMTseelyDirectors12/10/2008 2:41:14 PMFunny, Aronofsky is the first I thought of too. I felt like Requiem for a Dream, although excellent, was too 'rough' to be a masterpeice, and had a lot of themes explored in similar ways in other films. The Fountain, which I also enjoyed, was however almost too ambitious. The task Aronofsky set out to accomplish was enourmous. Four seperate stories that are intertwined but are seperate? Huh? Exactly. He handled it with alplomb, but it was still too alienating and lofty of a concept for it to ever work in a way that would connect with every filmgoer. [quote user="Risselada"] I'm thinking maybe Darren Aronofsky. I know a lot of people consider Requiem for a Dream a modern masterpiece, but I think he could do better. I still have yet to see The Fountain, but I know there was enough dissention that it still can't have been a masterpiece. [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_weirdest_movies/190/37870/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: GradysGhost
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 12/2/2008 7:10:33 PM
Body: [quote user="seely"] Hm, so many of the ones I would pick have already been picked. Theres a few notables missing, however. One of the all-time weirdest: The Fountain Darren Aronofsky (sp?) at his weirdest. I would try to explain it, but I'm not sure I can anymore. If you're interested, I reviewed it here. Requiem for a Dream Same director as Pi and the Fountain. The really trippy drug induced fantasies and hallucinations, plus the steady downward spiral of all the characters in this film make it a weird one. Fantasia Satan. Mickey Mouse. Pluto. Wizards. Demons. Nuff said. Me and You and Everyone We Know I saw this one twice and still can't really figure out quite what it is about. I've heard a wide range of theories. All I know is there is a 5 year old making out with a 35 year old woman, and he's obsessed with 'pooping back and forth forever'. Is it a metaphor? Is it funny? I don't really know. Stranger than Fiction / The Science of Sleep I don't know why, but I always think of these films together. Anyways, I think they both should be included on any 'weird' list. Both have pretty strange concepts that seem like they wouldn't work/be that interesting, but somehow both of them turned out to be good films--a big compliment to STF considering I don't like Will Ferrel as a rule of thumb. Both will definately mess with your mind a bit. [/quote] It's been ages since I've seen Fantasia, but I will vouch for The Science of Sleep and Me and You and Everyone We Know for being weird. Science of Sleep is such an amazing movie. Another thread around here somewhere spoke of Amelie as being a "gateway drug" to other foreign flicks. My brother has always adamently refused to watch foreign movies on the basis that he doesn't like to "read his movies." But he caught the last half of Science of Sleep and loved it. Something about how they keep switching between three languages for the entire film has this whirlwind effect that just sucks you up and moves you through the narrative, even when it's not so narrativey. Stranger Than Fiction is a pretty good metafiction film, but as far as metafiction is concerned, I have to offer up a couple of Michael Haneke films, Cache and Funny Games. While neither of these movies might be considered "weird," they have a fourth-wall-breaking aspect that your average film doesn't. And that's the understatement of the century. Cache has some disturbing imagery at one point, which seems more gruesome than that of Funny Games, even though Funny Games is far gorier. I think it has something to do with the way Funny Games incorporates its violence, the way that the "bad guys" let you, the audience, know that you know what these games are all about, and you're used to it by now. It's quite convincing, which I guess is the true horror of the film.
]]>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:10:33 GMTGradysGhostTop 512/2/2008 7:10:33 PM[quote user="seely"] Hm, so many of the ones I would pick have already been picked. Theres a few notables missing, however. One of the all-time weirdest: The Fountain Darren Aronofsky (sp?) at his weirdest. I would try to explain it, but I'm not sure I can anymore. If you're interested, I reviewed it here. Requiem for a Dream Same director as Pi and the Fountain. The really trippy drug induced fantasies and hallucinations, plus the steady downward spiral of all the characters in this film make it a weird one. Fantasia Satan. Mickey Mouse. Pluto. Wizards. Demons. Nuff said. Me and You and Everyone We Know I saw this one twice and still can't really figure out quite what it is about. I've heard a wide range of theories. All I know is there is a 5 year old making out with a 35 year old woman, and he's obsessed with 'pooping back and forth forever'. Is it a metaphor? Is it funny? I don't really know. Stranger than Fiction / The Science of Sleep I don't know why, but I always think of these films together. Anyways, I think they both should be included on any 'weird' list. Both have pretty strange concepts that seem like they wouldn't work/be that interesting, but somehow both of them turned out to be good films--a big compliment to STF considering I don't like Will Ferrel as a rule of thumb. Both will definately mess with your mind a bit. [/quote] It's been ages since I've seen Fantasia, but I will vouch for The Science of Sleep and Me and You and Everyone We Know for being weird. Science of Sleep is such an amazing movie. Another thread around here somewhere spoke of Amelie as being a "gateway drug" to other foreign flicks. My brother has always adamently refused to watch foreign movies on the basis that he doesn't like to "read his movies." But he caught the last half of Science of Sleep and loved it. Something about how they keep switching between three languages for the entire film has this whirlwind effect that just sucks you up and moves you through the narrative, even when it's not so narrativey. Stranger Than Fiction is a pretty good metafiction film, but as far as metafiction is concerned, I have to offer up a couple of Michael Haneke films, Cache and Funny Games. While neither of these movies might be considered "weird," they have a fourth-wall-breaking aspect that your average film doesn't. And that's the understatement of the century. Cache has some disturbing imagery at one point, which seems more gruesome than that of Funny Games, even though Funny Games is far gorier. I think it has something to do with the way Funny Games incorporates its violence, the way that the "bad guys" let you, the audience, know that you know what these games are all about, and you're used to it by now. It's quite convincing, which I guess is the true horror of the film. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/25/37652.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/25/2008 7:01:15 PM
Body: Catherine Hardwicke hit one out of the park for female directors this past weekend, but she had a lot of help. Not only was she working with a pre-sold property, she also had a very manageable budget of $37 million. Quite different from the $2 million she had to work with on Thirteen a few years back. Of course, she had similar budgets on Lords of Dogtown ($25 million) and The Nativity Story ($35 million), and both were box office disappointments. Still, she’s going to keep on being trusted with more money — if Summit is smart they’ll keep her on for at least the first Twilight sequel, which will surely come with a higher price tag — and as long as she continues with genre films, she’s sure to remain a profitable director. Not every talented filmmaker does well with more money. Danny Boyle, for instance, typically bombs with bigger budgets. And a lot of foreign auteurs strike out when handed costly studio-produced genre or franchise pics (Jeunet’s Alien Resurrection is a favorite example). But there’s the occasional filmmaker who, like Steven Soderbergh or Christopher Nolan, can make something worthwhile out of any budget they’re allotted. And then there are the many indie filmmakers who quickly find themselves at home with modestly priced broad comedies, such as the case with Seth Gordon easily transitioning from the Slamdance doc The King of Kong to the star-studded Hollywood holiday pic Four Christmases, out this week. Who will be the next small-scale filmmaker to successfully rise up and prove him or herself worthy of bigger budgets? SpoutBlog has selected five directors we’d like to see given an economic boost, each because he or she would likely deliver something more interesting and popular than the usual Hollywood product. James Marsh (Man on Wire; The King) He recently gave us one of the most entertaining documentaries of all time (Man on Wire), and it’s likely that he could also give us an equally entertaining blockbuster of some kind. His best gateway would be a big deal crime caper, along the lines of Soderbergh’s Ocean’s series or even the more modestly priced The Bank Job. He pretty much already showed he could shoot a riveting heist film with his re-enactment scenes in Man on Wire. Maybe he can also hold on to the French angle by helming one of those Melville or Dassin films that are always being announced and never actually being made. Marsh’s follow-up to Man on Wire will be a relatively small British crime drama (one-third of Channel 4’s series of David Peace adaptations), but afterward he needs to be heavily wooed by the American studios. Larry Fessenden (Wendigo; The Last Winter) He makes some of the most interesting “horror” films around (people sometimes call them “art horror”), but they’d be even better with a little extra cash to spend on special effects. His last two films kind of lose their heat in their third acts, when the cheaply constructed monsters and ghosts appear. But had The Last Winter cost $5 million instead of $50,000, it might have grossed $33 million domestically rather than $33,000. And its not like Hollywood wouldn’t be into Fessenden’s pro-nature plots. If they can give Roland Emmerich more than a hundred million for The Day After Tomorrow, they can give a guy like Fessenden less than $10 and actually get a smarter, more entertaining genre flick. Shane Carruth (Primer) He gave us one of the biggest mindf*cks in the history of cinema with his 2004 Sundance-winning sci-fi film Primer, but he hasn’t really been heard from since. According to Wikipedia, he’s been planning his follow-up for the past two years and is ready to start on the financing, so here’s an idea: Hollywood should get on that. If this former engineer has spent that long working out the details of his next project, it’s likely to be smarter than most of the speedily scripted science fiction released by the studios. And it’s certainly time for an intelligent blockbuster dealing with time travel or space travel or something else in that vein. Sure, Darren Aronofsky went from math-nerd sci-fi (Pi) to a big-budget disappointment (The Fountain), but now he’s coming back strong with The Wrestler and is set to helm a RoboCop remake next. Carruth could have a similar career without the bomb in the middle if one studio hands him just a fraction of what they gave Aronofsky. Anything’s going to be an increase over Primer’s $7,000 budget. Gregg Araki (The Doom Generation; Mysterious Skin; Smiley Face) His most recent movie, the stoner comedy Smiley Face, should have been given the same size push as The Pineapple Express, which interestingly enough proved that indie darling David Gordon Green could be trusted with bigger budgets. Unfortunately, Araki continues to be a mere cult favorite. But he’s not necessarily a Hal Hartley or John Waters; he can break out if given the chance to. The world is just waiting for him to become the missing link between Judd Apatow and Gus Van Sant. Or is a bisexual filmmaker not the most perfect person to handle the ever-increasing-in-popularity bromantic comedies? Helen Hunt (Then She Found Me) This actress-turned-filmmaker could be the 21st century Nora Ephron if only Hollywood believed that women could want something a little less cheesy than Sleepless in Seattle. Too bad movies like Sex and the City and Twilight are showing us female audiences actually prefer things even cheesier. But even a slight increase on Then She Found Me’s $3.5 million budget could give Hunt the ability to deliver a thoughtful cross between romantic comedy and Hallmark melodrama that might just elevate the tastes of moviegoers, or at least attract more intelligent women to the multiplex. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:01:15 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/25/2008 7:01:15 PMCatherine Hardwicke hit one out of the park for female directors this past weekend, but she had a lot of help. Not only was she working with a pre-sold property, she also had a very manageable budget of $37 million. Quite different from the $2 million she had to work with on Thirteen a few years back. Of course, she had similar budgets on Lords of Dogtown ($25 million) and The Nativity Story ($35 million), and both were box office disappointments. Still, she’s going to keep on being trusted with more money — if Summit is smart they’ll keep her on for at least the first Twilight sequel, which will surely come with a higher price tag — and as long as she continues with genre films, she’s sure to remain a profitable director. Not every talented filmmaker does well with more money. Danny Boyle, for instance, typically bombs with bigger budgets. And a lot of foreign auteurs strike out when handed costly studio-produced genre or franchise pics (Jeunet’s Alien Resurrection is a favorite example). But there’s the occasional filmmaker who, like Steven Soderbergh or Christopher Nolan, can make something worthwhile out of any budget they’re allotted. And then there are the many indie filmmakers who quickly find themselves at home with modestly priced broad comedies, such as the case with Seth Gordon easily transitioning from the Slamdance doc The King of Kong to the star-studded Hollywood holiday pic Four Christmases, out this week. Who will be the next small-scale filmmaker to successfully rise up and prove him or herself worthy of bigger budgets? SpoutBlog has selected five directors we’d like to see given an economic boost, each because he or she would likely deliver something more interesting and popular than the usual Hollywood product. James Marsh (Man on Wire; The King) He recently gave us one of the most entertaining documentaries of all time (Man on Wire), and it’s likely that he could also give us an equally entertaining blockbuster of some kind. His best gateway would be a big deal crime caper, along the lines of Soderbergh’s Ocean’s series or even the more modestly priced The Bank Job. He pretty much already showed he could shoot a riveting heist film with his re-enactment scenes in Man on Wire. Maybe he can also hold on to the French angle by helming one of those Melville or Dassin films that are always being announced and never actually being made. Marsh’s follow-up to Man on Wire will be a relatively small British crime drama (one-third of Channel 4’s series of David Peace adaptations), but afterward he needs to be heavily wooed by the American studios. Larry Fessenden (Wendigo; The Last Winter) He makes some of the most interesting “horror” films around (people sometimes call them “art horror”), but they’d be even better with a little extra cash to spend on special effects. His last two films kind of lose their heat in their third acts, when the cheaply constructed monsters and ghosts appear. But had The Last Winter cost $5 million instead of $50,000, it might have grossed $33 million domestically rather than $33,000. And its not like Hollywood wouldn’t be into Fessenden’s pro-nature plots. If they can give Roland Emmerich more than a hundred million for The Day After Tomorrow, they can give a guy like Fessenden less than $10 and actually get a smarter, more entertaining genre flick. Shane Carruth (Primer) He gave us one of the biggest mindf*cks in the history of cinema with his 2004 Sundance-winning sci-fi film Primer, but he hasn’t really been heard from since. According to Wikipedia, he’s been planning his follow-up for the past two years and is ready to start on the financing, so here’s an idea: Hollywood should get on that. If this former engineer has spent that long working out the details of his next project, it’s likely to be smarter than most of the speedily scripted science fiction released by the studios. And it’s certainly time for an intelligent blockbuster dealing with time travel or space travel or something else in that vein. Sure, Darren Aronofsky went from math-nerd sci-fi (Pi) to a big-budget disappointment (The Fountain), but now he’s coming back strong with The Wrestler and is set to helm a RoboCop remake next. Carruth could have a similar career without the bomb in the middle if one studio hands him just a fraction of what they gave Aronofsky. Anything’s going to be an increase over Primer’s $7,000 budget. Gregg Araki (The Doom Generation; Mysterious Skin; Smiley Face) His most recent movie, the stoner comedy Smiley Face, should have been given the same size push as The Pineapple Express, which interestingly enough proved that indie darling David Gordon Green could be trusted with bigger budgets. Unfortunately, Araki continues to be a mere cult favorite. But he’s not necessarily a Hal Hartley or John Waters; he can break out if given the chance to. The world is just waiting for him to become the missing link between Judd Apatow and Gus Van Sant. Or is a bisexual filmmaker not the most perfect person to handle the ever-increasing-in-popularity bromantic comedies? Helen Hunt (Then She Found Me) This actress-turned-filmmaker could be the 21st century Nora Ephron if only Hollywood believed that women could want something a little less cheesy than Sleepless in Seattle. Too bad movies like Sex and the City and Twilight are showing us female audiences actually prefer things even cheesier. But even a slight increase on Then She Found Me’s $3.5 million budget could give Hunt the ability to deliver a thoughtful cross between romantic comedy and Hallmark melodrama that might just elevate the tastes of moviegoers, or at least attract more intelligent women to the multiplex. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/expatpaul/archive/2008/11/13/37288.aspx Post By: ExpatPaul
Post To: Savage Popcorn
Post Date: 11/13/2008 4:50:21 PM
Body: The Fountain is certainly very pretty to look at but a collection of nicely shot scenes do not, on their own, amount to a film, or make a film worth watching. The problem here is that Aranofsky is so busy beating you around the head with all of his New Age inspired symbolism that he seems to have forgotten that a film needs a script.Although the Conquistador storyline was (for the most part) reasonably well done, I couldn’t make myself believe in the modern day versions of Tom and Izzy and I simply didn’t care about the future Tom. Maybe Aranofsky could have got away with this if the film had had something interesting to say. But it doesn’t. What we have instead is a collection of rather uninspired platitudes about life, death, and so on being endlessly repeated without ever being expanded, extended or properly explored. The Fountain is a slickly made, painfully self-important film, and ultimately vacuous waste of celluloid.
]]>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:50:21 GMTExpatPaulSavage Popcorn11/13/2008 4:50:21 PMThe Fountain is certainly very pretty to look at but a collection of nicely shot scenes do not, on their own, amount to a film, or make a film worth watching. The problem here is that Aranofsky is so busy beating you around the head with all of his New Age inspired symbolism that he seems to have forgotten that a film needs a script.Although the Conquistador storyline was (for the most part) reasonably well done, I couldn&rsquo;t make myself believe in the modern day versions of Tom and Izzy and I simply didn&rsquo;t care about the future Tom. Maybe Aranofsky could have got away with this if the film had had something interesting to say. But it doesn&rsquo;t. What we have instead is a collection of rather uninspired platitudes about life, death, and so on being endlessly repeated without ever being expanded, extended or properly explored. The Fountain is a slickly made, painfully self-important film, and ultimately vacuous waste of celluloid. http://www.spout.com/blogs/kowalski76/archive/2008/10/11/36189.aspx Post By: Kowalski76
Post To: Rebellious Celluloid
Post Date: 10/11/2008 2:04:09 PM
Body: 2006 (USA) dir: Darren Aronofsky Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, Ellen BurstynOn the surface 'The Fountain' is a confusing film, but underneath the convoluted plot and stunning visuals is a message that hits hard and keeps stirring the grey matter for days after the first watch.The Fountain is an odyssey about one man's thousand-year struggle to save the woman he loves. His epic journey begins in 16th century Spain, where conquistador Tomas Creo (Hugh Jackman) commences his search for the Tree of Life, the legendary entity believed to grant eternal life to those who drink of its sap. As modern-day scientist Tommy Creo, he desperately struggles to find a cure for the cancer that is killing his beloved wife Isabel (Rachel Weisz). Traveling through deep space as a 26th-century astronaut, Tom begins to grasp the mysteries of life that have consumed him for more than a century.Ultimately 'The Fountain' is about death as a form of creation, how a person cannot truly begin to live until they have conquered their fear of death.This year I turned thirty-seven (review wrote 12/06/07), the age my father was when I lost him to cancer. Death has been on my mind a lot lately and this film has hit me for six. Whether it has a positive effect or not, I don't know. I do know that Aranofsky has made a movie that will pay dividends on subsequent viewings, and I'm looking forward to buying the DVD. The fountain is cinematic poetry.
]]>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:04:09 GMTKowalski76Rebellious Celluloid10/11/2008 2:04:09 PM2006 (USA) dir: Darren Aronofsky Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, Ellen BurstynOn the surface 'The Fountain' is a confusing film, but underneath the convoluted plot and stunning visuals is a message that hits hard and keeps stirring the grey matter for days after the first watch.The Fountain is an odyssey about one man's thousand-year struggle to save the woman he loves. His epic journey begins in 16th century Spain, where conquistador Tomas Creo (Hugh Jackman) commences his search for the Tree of Life, the legendary entity believed to grant eternal life to those who drink of its sap. As modern-day scientist Tommy Creo, he desperately struggles to find a cure for the cancer that is killing his beloved wife Isabel (Rachel Weisz). Traveling through deep space as a 26th-century astronaut, Tom begins to grasp the mysteries of life that have consumed him for more than a century.Ultimately 'The Fountain' is about death as a form of creation, how a person cannot truly begin to live until they have conquered their fear of death.This year I turned thirty-seven (review wrote 12/06/07), the age my father was when I lost him to cancer. Death has been on my mind a lot lately and this film has hit me for six. Whether it has a positive effect or not, I don't know. I do know that Aranofsky has made a movie that will pay dividends on subsequent viewings, and I'm looking forward to buying the DVD. The fountain is cinematic poetry. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_weirdest_movies/190/35446/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 9/23/2008 2:35:16 PM
Body: Hm, so many of the ones I would pick have already been picked. Theres a few notables missing, however. One of the all-time weirdest: The Fountain Darren Aronofsky (sp?) at his weirdest. I would try to explain it, but I'm not sure I can anymore. If you're interested, I reviewed it here. Requiem for a Dream Same director as Pi and the Fountain. The really trippy drug induced fantasies and hallucinations, plus the steady downward spiral of all the characters in this film make it a weird one. Fantasia Satan. Mickey Mouse. Pluto. Wizards. Demons. Nuff said. Me and You and Everyone We Know I saw this one twice and still can't really figure out quite what it is about. I've heard a wide range of theories. All I know is there is a 5 year old making out with a 35 year old woman, and he's obsessed with 'pooping back and forth forever'. Is it a metaphor? Is it funny? I don't really know. Stranger than Fiction / The Science of Sleep I don't know why, but I always think of these films together. Anyways, I think they both should be included on any 'weird' list. Both have pretty strange concepts that seem like they wouldn't work/be that interesting, but somehow both of them turned out to be good films--a big compliment to STF considering I don't like Will Ferrel as a rule of thumb. Both will definately mess with your mind a bit.
]]>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:35:16 GMTseelyTop 59/23/2008 2:35:16 PMHm, so many of the ones I would pick have already been picked. Theres a few notables missing, however. One of the all-time weirdest: The Fountain Darren Aronofsky (sp?) at his weirdest. I would try to explain it, but I'm not sure I can anymore. If you're interested, I reviewed it here. Requiem for a Dream Same director as Pi and the Fountain. The really trippy drug induced fantasies and hallucinations, plus the steady downward spiral of all the characters in this film make it a weird one. Fantasia Satan. Mickey Mouse. Pluto. Wizards. Demons. Nuff said. Me and You and Everyone We Know I saw this one twice and still can't really figure out quite what it is about. I've heard a wide range of theories. All I know is there is a 5 year old making out with a 35 year old woman, and he's obsessed with 'pooping back and forth forever'. Is it a metaphor? Is it funny? I don't really know. Stranger than Fiction / The Science of Sleep I don't know why, but I always think of these films together. Anyways, I think they both should be included on any 'weird' list. Both have pretty strange concepts that seem like they wouldn't work/be that interesting, but somehow both of them turned out to be good films--a big compliment to STF considering I don't like Will Ferrel as a rule of thumb. Both will definately mess with your mind a bit. http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_Cast_BATMAN_3/563/33806/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: jonnygotham
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 8/9/2008 8:05:19 PM
Body: Hello Everyone: I realize this has been said before, as I'm joining a bit late in the game, but I agree that the next solid and fitting character for the Batman movies would draw from the story arc of HUSH, by Jeph Loeb. Nolan has a knack for cutting and piecing together story elements, which is going to come in handy when the need arises to cut out a great deal of characters from this story line - which is practically Batman versus his entire Rogues Gallery. Further, it's something that would need to be done. Some characters would simply be too fantastic to fit the grit of the world that Nolan took so long to create, and for the sake of creating a strong and enjoyable film, you need to focus on the concentrating things rather than diluting the story with too many characters. That being said, the main villain is HUSH. Thomas Elliot. As it has already been described, Thomas Elliot is an excellent character foil for the Batman/Bruce Wayne character. While having several parallels to both sides of the Batman/Bruce Wayne character, Elliot also has a small, but powerful set of ties and links to the Dark Knight character that make for a great story. The end of "The Dark Knight" saw the hero finally turn into a villain. Presumably, opinion is now going to be split on the Batman character, with far more of its citizens fearing the hero than begging for his help. This takes the main character away from the previous story push and aim to create a symbol that inspires people, allowing a story shift and pursuance of another avenue that is equally compelling. The hero is locked-in now. No one to pick up the mantle, its just him to save the people... and they don't necessarily want his help. As a now isolated character without aid or allies, it is conceivable that Batman pushes beyond his limits and actually suffers the injuries that introduce the Hush character to the story (Elliot, childhood friend, is a world-renounce surgeon - the best in his field and the only one they can trust to handle the operation and potential questions about the nature of the injuries). There is a very engrossing story that is possible there, between a hero that's been cutoff and the renewing of an old friend. The equalities of the Elliot character to Bruce Wayne in intelligence, success, and discipline provide interactions that were as interesting, if not more, as the love triangle dinner we saw in "The Dark Knight". The fact that he knows the hero's secrets and is smart enough to exploit the weaknesses Batman has in the wake of the last movie make the story less Superhero flick, and more revenge thriller (as the last film capitalized on making a crime drama, rather than the standard superhero movie). The costumes are solid and realistic. For much of the story, the Hush character appears as a face-bandaged, trench-coat figure and shadow. This helps, because with the unknown status of the Two Face character, we have an identity mystery - is the villain Harvey Dent? - Now completely mad and face-fully bandaged similar to the hospital scenes in the Dark Knight, or is it someone completely new? Further, with the relative unknown nature of the Hush villain until very recently, this ambiguity helps, because everyone is going to wonder who the next big costume villain is going to be - and they aren't going to get it. There are a myriad of supporting characters to aid this new story and complementary direction, and I leave their inclusion and exclusion to Nolan. There is something to be said about the possibilities of this new villain though. We gain a friend that the isolated hero needs. We gain a character interaction that is similar to the friendship between Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne that was left out of "The Dark Knight", and only slightly exploited in the Love Triangle dinner scene. We have an equal, if not smarter adversary, with a distinct advantage over the hero in that he knows the full playing field and all the players, where Batman does not because of the events at the end of the last movie. Finally, we have a good story that isn't filled with Super-ness. It's a pure revenge-angled crime story. Plenty of options with psychosis, flash-backs, inner struggles, finding control within doing good and dealing with anger and violence, etc. So with the case presented, comes the problem of casting. The character has to match in charisma, acting talent, and needs to be able to switch between friend and foe without the cliches of cinema. He can be the villain without a sinister laugh, vocal change, or costume - the worst villains don't have to LOOK like villains, they're the friends that are trusted and wreak havoc by exploiting their unique positions. Hugh Jackman would be great because of stature and talent - not Wolverine, but more The Fountain and Prestige. Problem is resurrecting the Bale/Jackman duo without reminding the audience of their previous collaboration, similar in revenge aspect. Further, I'm not sure what happens with contracts and acting in multiple superhero franchises. Tom Cruise is great, except for stature. While a lot of people have issues with him, he matches in charisma, looks, and seriousness that would be needed. Unfortunately, he doesn't command the same weight in presence due to his size, especially relative to Bale. He would do well though, given the psyche exploits in Vanilla Sky and other work. I do not like Gerard Butler, as previously noted. I feel like it would become too reminiscent of his previous villain and hero roles and fall victim to the cliches stated before. I had to wrack my brain, and I'm still on the fence a bit (because there might be someone more fitting), but among the many options in Hollywood, perhaps James Caviezel would suit the role well. He has strength in previous roles: Thin Red Line, Count of Monte Cristo, Passion of the Christ, etc. He has similar stature to Bale, if only slightly taller than Bale (according to IMDB), and he evokes a feeling of sympathy for his characters, no matter the act - which helps when crafting a villain. You don't just need Batman to trust him, you need the audience to trust him. There is enough in the HUSH story to bring old characters and villains back to help minimize "noise" in the story, while it also has enough options to introduce new characters to help with transitions and plot development. Hopefully, you'll all see some merits in this, and maybe find a more suitable player to fill the shoes, but either way, the villain of Hush presents a pretty strong case to fill out and end Nolan's work with the Batman franchise. Three films is enough for the current ensemble - enough to be great, and still has potential to leave its fans wanting more. Thanks for the patience in reading. Best. jonny.gotham
]]>Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:05:19 GMTjonnygothamFilmgaming8/9/2008 8:05:19 PM Hello Everyone: I realize this has been said before, as I'm joining a bit late in the game, but I agree that the next solid and fitting character for the Batman movies would draw from the story arc of HUSH, by Jeph Loeb. Nolan has a knack for cutting and piecing together story elements, which is going to come in handy when the need arises to cut out a great deal of characters from this story line - which is practically Batman versus his entire Rogues Gallery. Further, it's something that would need to be done. Some characters would simply be too fantastic to fit the grit of the world that Nolan took so long to create, and for the sake of creating a strong and enjoyable film, you need to focus on the concentrating things rather than diluting the story with too many characters. That being said, the main villain is HUSH. Thomas Elliot. As it has already been described, Thomas Elliot is an excellent character foil for the Batman/Bruce Wayne character. While having several parallels to both sides of the Batman/Bruce Wayne character, Elliot also has a small, but powerful set of ties and links to the Dark Knight character that make for a great story. The end of "The Dark Knight" saw the hero finally turn into a villain. Presumably, opinion is now going to be split on the Batman character, with far more of its citizens fearing the hero than begging for his help. This takes the main character away from the previous story push and aim to create a symbol that inspires people, allowing a story shift and pursuance of another avenue that is equally compelling. The hero is locked-in now. No one to pick up the mantle, its just him to save the people... and they don't necessarily want his help. As a now isolated character without aid or allies, it is conceivable that Batman pushes beyond his limits and actually suffers the injuries that introduce the Hush character to the story (Elliot, childhood friend, is a world-renounce surgeon - the best in his field and the only one they can trust to handle the operation and potential questions about the nature of the injuries). There is a very engrossing story that is possible there, between a hero that's been cutoff and the renewing of an old friend. The equalities of the Elliot character to Bruce Wayne in intelligence, success, and discipline provide interactions that were as interesting, if not more, as the love triangle dinner we saw in "The Dark Knight". The fact that he knows the hero's secrets and is smart enough to exploit the weaknesses Batman has in the wake of the last movie make the story less Superhero flick, and more revenge thriller (as the last film capitalized on making a crime drama, rather than the standard superhero movie). The costumes are solid and realistic. For much of the story, the Hush character appears as a face-bandaged, trench-coat figure and shadow. This helps, because with the unknown status of the Two Face character, we have an identity mystery - is the villain Harvey Dent? - Now completely mad and face-fully bandaged similar to the hospital scenes in the Dark Knight, or is it someone completely new? Further, with the relative unknown nature of the Hush villain until very recently, this ambiguity helps, because everyone is going to wonder who the next big costume villain is going to be - and they aren't going to get it. There are a myriad of supporting characters to aid this new story and complementary direction, and I leave their inclusion and exclusion to Nolan. There is something to be said about the possibilities of this new villain though. We gain a friend that the isolated hero needs. We gain a character interaction that is similar to the friendship between Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne that was left out of "The Dark Knight", and only slightly exploited in the Love Triangle dinner scene. We have an equal, if not smarter adversary, with a distinct advantage over the hero in that he knows the full playing field and all the players, where Batman does not because of the events at the end of the last movie. Finally, we have a good story that isn't filled with Super-ness. It's a pure revenge-angled crime story. Plenty of options with psychosis, flash-backs, inner struggles, finding control within doing good and dealing with anger and violence, etc. So with the case presented, comes the problem of casting. The character has to match in charisma, acting talent, and needs to be able to switch between friend and foe without the cliches of cinema. He can be the villain without a sinister laugh, vocal change, or costume - the worst villains don't have to LOOK like villains, they're the friends that are trusted and wreak havoc by exploiting their unique positions. Hugh Jackman would be great because of stature and talent - not Wolverine, but more The Fountain and Prestige. Problem is resurrecting the Bale/Jackman duo without reminding the audience of their previous collaboration, similar in revenge aspect. Further, I'm not sure what happens with contracts and acting in multiple superhero franchises. Tom Cruise is great, except for stature. While a lot of people have issues with him, he matches in charisma, looks, and seriousness that would be needed. Unfortunately, he doesn't command the same weight in presence due to his size, especially relative to Bale. He would do well though, given the psyche exploits in Vanilla Sky and other work. I do not like Gerard Butler, as previously noted. I feel like it would become too reminiscent of his previous villain and hero roles and fall victim to the cliches stated before. I had to wrack my brain, and I'm still on the fence a bit (because there might be someone more fitting), but among the many options in Hollywood, perhaps James Caviezel would suit the role well. He has strength in previous roles: Thin Red Line, Count of Monte Cristo, Passion of the Christ, etc. He has similar stature to Bale, if only slightly taller than Bale (according to IMDB), and he evokes a feeling of sympathy for his characters, no matter the act - which helps when crafting a villain. You don't just need Batman to trust him, you need the audience to trust him. There is enough in the HUSH story to bring old characters and villains back to help minimize "noise" in the story, while it also has enough options to introduce new characters to help with transitions and plot development. Hopefully, you'll all see some merits in this, and maybe find a more suitable player to fill the shoes, but either way, the villain of Hush presents a pretty strong case to fill out and end Nolan's work with the Batman franchise. Three films is enough for the current ensemble - enough to be great, and still has potential to leave its fans wanting more. Thanks for the patience in reading. Best. jonny.gotham http://www.spout.com/blogs/mike_moody/archive/2008/6/25/31712.aspx Post By: mike_moody
Post To: Moody's Movie Blog
Post Date: 6/25/2008 11:02:54 PM
Body: Have you ever watched a movie and thought, "Wow, that was a mess, but I loved it"? I have, and I have a name for movies that make me feel that way. I call 'em "beautiful failures."Beautiful failures are usually too long, too weird, too sloppy or just plain stupid, but they're always strangely compelling and, well, beautiful. They're the movies you think you hate but you can't stop thinking about. You come back to them over and over and you can't figure out why. They can be very complex, pretentious or even too simple or mass appealing. Other film buffs might tell you different, but there's really no formula to creating a beautiful failure.Some of my favorite beautiful failures are Steven Soderbergh's Solaris, Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut and David Cronenberg's awkward 1996 thriller Crash. I love these films for different reasons, but I recognize that they're all a little ... dreadful.Here are a few titles I've recently added to my list of beautiful failures. The Science of Sleep The problems start with the packaging and advertising for director Michel Gondry's follow-up to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The trailer and DVD box try to sell the film as a quirky romantic comedy full of whimsical dream sequences and cute one-liners. What you really get is a seemingly chaotic but densely structured character study of an unlikable, mentally ill manchild (Gael Garcia Bernal). There's a lot of good here, though. Bernal's character has trouble disassociating fantasy from reality, and Gondry illustrates this with some charming and singular visual tricks. Also, the ending is somewhat of a stunner that brilliantly unites all the disparate ideas and elements that came before. Unfortunately, most viewers will be confused and sick of all the seeming randomness before the third act. Bernal and the rest of the cast are great, but most of the characters are unappealing or hard to relate to. Still, I'll go back to this movie again for its brave storytelling, strange comedic bits and great visuals. The Fountain Where to start? The Fountain is the perfect beautiful failure. It's at times fiercely incoherent, silly and pretentious, but it's also visually impressive and features a very strong lead performance by Hugh Jackman. All of the "big ideas" director Daron Aronofsky (Pi, Requim for a Dream) attempts to convey here can be gleaned from the preface of one of those Don't Sweat the Small Stuff books, but he delivers his dime store philosophy in an extravagant package that constantly switches from compelling to laughable (picture a bald Jackman reaching nirvana while sitting in a lotus position). Add to that a bunch of muddled biblical references, plot strands that go nowhere and performances that range from sleepy (Rachel Weisz) to irrelevant (Ellen Burstyn) and you have a "bf" that somehow demands repeat viewing. Ghost Rider This campy comic book adaptation is about a guy with a flaming skull for a head, but that's the least ridiculous thing about it. After delivering two joyless duds based on Marvel books (Daredevil and Elektra) writer-director Mark Steven Johnson ampsGhost Rider's absurdity factor up to 11. Unfortunately, that's way too high -- even for a comic book movie.The film is a poorly written, painfully simplistic and predictable popcorn flick, but its worst attributes are what will keep me coming back to it. You have to admire a film that so economically delivers the cheap thrills and seems willing to suck ass to do so. The cast members do their best to make sure that Ghost Rider makes you smirk for 90 minutes and slips out of your system faster than a Diet Coke. It's a sick and fascinating thing to watch Nicholas Cage violently hammer tons of trite quirks and ticks into his character (He eats M&Ms from a champagne flute! He listens to The Carpenters! He speaks with an undefinable accent!). Peter Fonda and Sam Elliot ham it up, but the real kick here is Wes Bentley as the film's impossibly witless and fruity villain, Blackheart. Originally posted at Gold Teeth.
]]>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:02:54 GMTmike_moodyMoody's Movie Blog6/25/2008 11:02:54 PM Have you ever watched a movie and thought, "Wow, that was a mess, but I loved it"? I have, and I have a name for movies that make me feel that way. I call 'em "beautiful failures."Beautiful failures are usually too long, too weird, too sloppy or just plain stupid, but they're always strangely compelling and, well, beautiful. They're the movies you think you hate but you can't stop thinking about. You come back to them over and over and you can't figure out why. They can be very complex, pretentious or even too simple or mass appealing. Other film buffs might tell you different, but there's really no formula to creating a beautiful failure.Some of my favorite beautiful failures are Steven Soderbergh's Solaris, Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut and David Cronenberg's awkward 1996 thriller Crash. I love these films for different reasons, but I recognize that they're all a little ... dreadful.Here are a few titles I've recently added to my list of beautiful failures. The Science of Sleep The problems start with the packaging and advertising for director Michel Gondry's follow-up to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The trailer and DVD box try to sell the film as a quirky romantic comedy full of whimsical dream sequences and cute one-liners. What you really get is a seemingly chaotic but densely structured character study of an unlikable, mentally ill manchild (Gael Garcia Bernal). There's a lot of good here, though. Bernal's character has trouble disassociating fantasy from reality, and Gondry illustrates this with some charming and singular visual tricks. Also, the ending is somewhat of a stunner that brilliantly unites all the disparate ideas and elements that came before. Unfortunately, most viewers will be confused and sick of all the seeming randomness before the third act. Bernal and the rest of the cast are great, but most of the characters are unappealing or hard to relate to. Still, I'll go back to this movie again for its brave storytelling, strange comedic bits and great visuals. The Fountain Where to start? The Fountain is the perfect beautiful failure. It's at times fiercely incoherent, silly and pretentious, but it's also visually impressive and features a very strong lead performance by Hugh Jackman. All of the "big ideas" director Daron Aronofsky (Pi, Requim for a Dream) attempts to convey here can be gleaned from the preface of one of those Don't Sweat the Small Stuff books, but he delivers his dime store philosophy in an extravagant package that constantly switches from compelling to laughable (picture a bald Jackman reaching nirvana while sitting in a lotus position). Add to that a bunch of muddled biblical references, plot strands that go nowhere and performances that range from sleepy (Rachel Weisz) to irrelevant (Ellen Burstyn) and you have a "bf" that somehow demands repeat viewing. Ghost Rider This campy comic book adaptation is about a guy with a flaming skull for a head, but that's the least ridiculous thing about it. After delivering two joyless duds based on Marvel books (Daredevil and Elektra) writer-director Mark Steven Johnson ampsGhost Rider's absurdity factor up to 11. Unfortunately, that's way too high -- even for a comic book movie.The film is a poorly written, painfully simplistic and predictable popcorn flick, but its worst attributes are what will keep me coming back to it. You have to admire a film that so economically delivers the cheap thrills and seems willing to suck ass to do so. The cast members do their best to make sure that Ghost Rider makes you smirk for 90 minutes and slips out of your system faster than a Diet Coke. It's a sick and fascinating thing to watch Nicholas Cage violently hammer tons of trite quirks and ticks into his character (He eats M&amp;Ms from a champagne flute! He listens to The Carpenters! He speaks with an undefinable accent!). Peter Fonda and Sam Elliot ham it up, but the real kick here is Wes Bentley as the film's impossibly witless and fruity villain, Blackheart. Originally posted at Gold Teeth. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/amazing/MemberTagFilms.aspxamazing
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 156

Number of times used: 253

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:49:13 GMT179156253Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 260

Number of people who tagged: 150

Number of times used: 417

]]>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:43:48 GMT260150417Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/movie/MemberTagFilms.aspxmovie
Number of films tagged: 364

Number of people who tagged: 115

Number of times used: 188

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:57:46 GMT364115188Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/masterpiece/MemberTagFilms.aspxmasterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 215

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:28 GMT226101215Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/surreal/MemberTagFilms.aspxsurreal
Number of films tagged: 73

Number of people who tagged: 73

Number of times used: 134

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:29:29 GMT7373134Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/original/MemberTagFilms.aspxoriginal
Number of films tagged: 77

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 94

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:02:07 GMT775294Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/emotional/MemberTagFilms.aspxemotional
Number of films tagged: 66

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 106

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:02:06 GMT6645106Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/touching/MemberTagFilms.aspxtouching
Number of films tagged: 87

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 110

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:29 GMT8736110Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/new/MemberTagFilms.aspxnew
Number of films tagged: 31

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 32

]]>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:51:54 GMT313232Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/stunning/MemberTagFilms.aspxstunning
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 44

]]>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:18:04 GMT303244Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/scientist/MemberTagFilms.aspxscientist
Number of films tagged: 1408

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 77

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:47:27 GMT14083177Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/unique/MemberTagFilms.aspxunique
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 39

]]>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:18:04 GMT303139Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/visual/MemberTagFilms.aspxvisual
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 161

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT14028161Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/philosophy/MemberTagFilms.aspxphilosophy
Number of films tagged: 489

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 35

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:12:13 GMT4892635Tag