The Fountain was the most controversial film of 2006. Indicating how varied the responses to it were, it currently has an exact 50% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. My cineaste pals were divided as well- K.J. Gorlitz hated the movie, Eddie "the punk" Oslan had mixed feelings about it, while Nate and Rob loved it. I recently read a review of the DVD release that gave an interesting fact- at its premier at the Venice Film Festival, it was booed by critics. The next day, at the first audience screening, it received a ten minuet standing ovation.
I missed the film when it played in Mount Pleasant (the early reviews were horrible, I saw Flags of Our Fathers instead, which is worse). Then it was a long wait for a DVD release, and when I went to get it at Blockbuster the clerk told me it was "amazing". As he said it, I had a momentary flashback to K.J.'s immortal "what the ****?" review. What would I think of the movie?
Well, although I didn't think it was quite as bad as Kristen, there are several problems with the movie. It is really two movies put together. One wants to be a Dreyer-type deep statement on life, death and apparently immortality and another wants to be a Herzog-like "experience" film. The mesh is what really kills it. It is too enigmatic and too literal, too cerebral and not cerebral enough, and ultimately has both too many ideas and too few.
What you know from the trailers is basically what you get from the film. It's three different stories in three time periods-1500, 2000, and 2500, intercut together ala Intolerance. All three star Hugh Jackman as a figure who in someway looking to cheat death. In 1500 he's a Conquistador sent by Queen Isabella of Spain (Rachel Weisz) to find the fountain of youth, in 2000 he's a doctor trying to find a cure for his wife's Izzi's (also Rachel Weisz) brain tumor, in 2500 he's a nameless bald guy on a what is apparently a spaceship trying to reach a distant star about to go nova. The star also appears in the other stories, in different contexts.
There are some really ridiculous moments in this movie- the bald guy talking passionately to a tree, the bald guy floating in a bubble while meditating (or something), a torture scene with the Spanish Inquisition. There's also lots of laughably bad dialogue between the doctor and his wife, the doctor and his superior (Ellen Burstyn), pointless political intrigue in old Spain, and some really cheap tricks (including a surprise patient at an operation early in the film).
However, there are some moments of real atmosphere and beauty in this film- the bald guy (I don't know what else to call him) against a field of stars, the apparent success of the Conquistador late in the film. The movie's best quality is an unnerving score by Clint Mansell.
You sort of know going into a movie like this that everything is not going to make literal sense, but why does Aronofsky water down what successful visual poetry he achieves with horrible lines like "You know that the ancient Mayan's called death? They called it awe. Awe!" What was he trying to say with this movie anywhere? That people don't really die and just change form? That the afterlife is nothing to be afraid of ? Who knows?
Werner Herzog and Vittorio De Sica are both great filmmakers who make movies with very, very simple ideas but get by (when their successful) on the emotional content of their movies. I still am sadden when I think of a lonely old man trying to find a good home for his dog, or still amazed at the absolutely height of insanity at the end of Aguirre. For every good moment in the film, there is an awkward one to undermine it, for every beautiful shot, there's a stupid one like the bald guy in the bubble. If you just don't think about the ideas at all and let the movie wash over as visual poetry, you might enjoy it, but I couldn't and that's not what Aronofsky wanted either. Like Icarus, he flew too close to the sun, and his wings melted.
The Fountain (2006)