What's new

The Fountain -- what was your take?

If you plan to see The Fountain go no further -- spoilers ahead

This explanation of The Foutain was the one that worked best with me:

I think I have an alternate explanation for the series of events in this movie. My interpretation is based on the Mayan Bible or Popul Vuh. A common theme in Izzi's discussions with Tomas was Life emerging through death and sacrifice. If you read the Popul Vuh, the first father is sacrificed, and from his decapitated head, a tree emerges bringing forth new life.

I think that all of the events depicted in the movie were supposed to be real (according to this underlying theme). In the first thread, there was literally a guy charged by the queen to track down the tree of life. When he found the tree, he consumed the sap, only to be consumed by new growth (in the form of flowers). Assuming that this actually did happen, we could also assume that the Inquisitor would have fulfilled his mission and sacrificed the queen, since her conquistidor presumably would have failed to come back with the "fountain". But don't forget Izzi's recurring statements about life emerging from death...

Flash forward to the second thread - Izzi and Tomas are now reincarnations of the queen and her conquistidor. As fate would have it, the two were once again brought together. The reason that Izzi is able to write about the tree in her book (before Tomas discovered the healing properties of the tree in South America), is because she is recalling her previous life in the 1500's. Also, when Tomas spontaneously discovers the cure to aging and reversing the tumor, he first looked up at the ceiling and seemed to be seeing the dying nebula in his mind. This boils back to our theme - life emerges from death (new stars emerge from the dying nebula). In that scene, Tomas was experiencing a deja vu moment of his previous life that allowed him to make a scientifically impossible leap of logic in tying the chemical compounds together to create a cure. When Izzi is dying, she realizes that there will be life after her death, although Tomas cannot come to terms with this. He tracks down the tree of life, plants a seed at Izzi's grave, and from her remains a new tree of life emerges. He seeks to cheat death by eating of the bark of this tree to maintain his mortality. He also seeks to have Izzi reborn by reaching the dying nebula together with her tree remains.

I would be curious to hear others takes, for those who have seen it.
 
Do you like any fantasy sci -fi movies? Or just slapstick comedies and war movies?

Some people seem not to be capable of grasping deep layers and abstract concepts.
 
Sorry, I didn't mean to make it ugly. I just really felt let down by this movie. I enjoy a broad spectrum of movies - fantasy, sci-fi, war, action/adventure. About the only ones I can't stand are the latest slew of "comedies" that seem to only care about how much they can push the envelope in crudeness.

I like a movie that makes me think. This one, though, numbed my brain long before the ending every came around. Don't get me wrong, I understood (finally at the end) the whole continuity of it, but I still found it could have been more engaging to the viewer.

I understand you read a few more things to gain a greater understanding. That isn't why I watch a movie. The information was all there, but the way it jumped around from sub-plot to sub-plot made it hard to see any kind of overall picture until after the movie was over and you sit there, scratching your head for a while (which was literally what my wife and I had to do). You have to understand the sequential conclusions to each of the stories to understand the overall picture, and you don't get any of them until the end, where you have to process all of it.

I enjoy thoughtful movies. But this one was simply a snoozer for me.

By the way, my favorite movies include Casablanca, The Mission, Serenity, The Lord of the Rings, Army of Darkness, Schindler's List, Chariots of Fire, etc. That may give you an idea of where my tastes lie.
 
As an interesting note of some sort...
A couple years ago a read or heard a report that linked the type of movies that one likes with their political leanings. They said it was common for republicans to favor strong good vs evil movies and democrats to favor more film noir type, there is good in the bad guy and bad in the good guy type movies.

An informal polling of my friends seems to support their findings.
I just thought it was interesting. I will post a link if I can find it.

As a side note maybe my centrist views are what makes me obsessed with all sorts of movies. :biggrin:
 
Do you like any fantasy sci -fi movies? Or just slapstick comedies and war movies?

Some people seem not to be capable of grasping deep layers and abstract concepts.

Clearly I should avoid such meaningful theatric representations of reincarnation and return to my simplistic life, contemplating the human immune system and its ability/inability to control lifelong chronic infections.
 
As an interesting note of some sort...
A couple years ago a read or heard a report that linked the type of movies that one likes with their political leanings. They said it was common for republicans to favor strong good vs evil movies and democrats to favor more film noir type, there is good in the bad guy and bad in the good guy type movies.

An informal polling of my friends seems to support their findings.
I just thought it was interesting. I will post a link if I can find it.

As a side note maybe my centrist views are what makes me obsessed with all sorts of movies. :biggrin:

I'll buy that, to some extent. But I would not fit that mold, then. One of my favorite stars of all time is Bogart, and my favorites of his movies are The Big Sleep, The Maltese Falcon, and Casablanca, the first two being clear examples of the noir genre, and Bogart being a classic anti-hero in all three. Add on to that list Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven, which I also loved - arguably a modern western film noir.
 
I'm an Aronofsky fan, but this movie just plain sucked. This was a $200k art film done on a studio budget. Such a waste and a shame. Hugh Jackman is such a great actor, but he wasn't used at all. Aronofsky's really going to have to knock his next film out of the park or he's going to have trouble getting his projects financed.
 
I'll buy that, to some extent. But I would not fit that mold, then. One of my favorite stars of all time is Bogart, and my favorites of his movies are The Big Sleep, The Maltese Falcon, and Casablanca, the first two being clear examples of the noir genre, and Bogart being a classic anti-hero in all three. Add on to that list Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven, which I also loved - arguably a modern western film noir.

Bogart is fantastic. One of my very favorites.
The theory is certainly not going to hold up for everyone. I think it's just a general trend sort of thing.

I'm a big film noir fan, old and new. I really like the newer "psyco-noir" films as well (i.e. Fight Club and Memento).
 
Bogart is fantastic. One of my very favorites.
The theory is certainly not going to hold up for everyone. I think it's just a general trend sort of thing.

I'm a big film noir fan, old and new. I really like the newer "psyco-noir" films as well (i.e. Fight Club and Memento).

Fight Club not so much for me, but I loved Memento. My wife couldn't stand it, but I thought it was brilliant.
 
I thought this movie was ok. It would have been much better if they left the snow-globe spaceship out and maybe made Izzy (she was the female right?) get naked. She's cute in a weird sort of way-- harry eyebrows and all.

But seriously, one would have to read the book before seeing the movie to understand it. It was a book first, right?

I love the 1500's stuff, and even the modern stuff was ok, but when they tried to weave it all together-- flop!

It's almost like, the concentrated on the wrong scenes to get their point across.
 
Since an opinion was asked, one is offered:

I can't sit through it and have tried.

The movie is boring. The story line is disjointed (even for a non-linear story line). None of the characters are compelling. I only cared that I had an alternative to this movie: not watching it.

While the potential was there, it was not realized.
 
I love that the movie attempted something bigger than the typical box office movie, I just think it needed to move on to the next thought after a while..... I am somewhat familiar with Popol Vuh and Mayan philosophy and love the concept of inviting us into some of this but after a while I got the point and just wanted something else to happen with the story.

Like a lot of movies I feel like it had an opportunity that it missed out on. You can't really remake it or recycle it, so unfortunately it's pretty much a great concept in a mediocre film body.

[BTW Apocalypto fits into that category, too. :frown:]
 
The only thing that I was glad about was the fact I spent a couple of dollars to rent the movie versus spending $20 at theater
 
Do you like any fantasy sci -fi movies? Or just slapstick comedies and war movies?

Some people seem not to be capable of grasping deep layers and abstract concepts.

I am going to jump in here. Not so much the first part, moreso the second. I was so disappointed with this movie was well. It isn't that I am incapable of deep layers and abstract concepts, but movies don't have to be nonsensical to have layers. The abstraction shouldn't get in the way of the plot. Moments of "what did I just watch?" are fine, but this movie left me with a permanent "what was the point?" feeling. If the movie gave me the tools to answer that question, then I would have been fine. Instead, it left a question mark with no real foundation in which to find the answer. After life of pi and requiem for a dream, which I really liked, I just didn't find this particularly good. I felt like it was overly pretentious and a let down. BUT, thats just me.

Edit- oh yeah. One person mentioned that a lot of the movie revolves around Buddhism. I have no idea if this is the case, but maybe a foundation in this would have let me make sense of the rest of it.
 
I am going to jump in here. Not so much the first part, moreso the second. I was so disappointed with this movie was well. It isn't that I am incapable of deep layers and abstract concepts, but movies don't have to be nonsensical to have layers. The abstraction shouldn't get in the way of the plot. Moments of "what did I just watch?" are fine, but this movie left me with a permanent "what was the point?" feeling. If the movie gave me the tools to answer that question, then I would have been fine. Instead, it left a question mark with no real foundation in which to find the answer. After life of pi and requiem for a dream, which I really liked, I just didn't find this particularly good. I felt like it was overly pretentious and a let down. BUT, thats just me.

Edit- oh yeah. One person mentioned that a lot of the movie revolves around Buddhism. I have no idea if this is the case, but maybe a foundation in this would have let me make sense of the rest of it.

I really like π as well!
 
I guess I'm single layered as well....When it comes to Mayan stuff I prefer the real thing......John Stephens and Linda Schele for the details......
 
Top Bottom