The Fountain
A man travels through time in an epic struggle to save the woman he loves and to understand the mysteries of life in this sci-fi drama. In three parallel stories spanning a millennium, Tom (Hugh Jackman) searches for a legendary tree believed to grant eternal life in 16th-century Spain; tries to discover a cure for his wife's (Rachel Weisz) cancer as a present-day scientist; and traverses the universe as a 26th-century astronaut.
Feedgeist
» Currently at the homes of 8 people
» Queued up by 643 people
mwg 434789 JB 688328 RF 1293261 DG 631199 TP 648013 CT 916496 iqk 520899 PDeXistentialist Anjrue gzo 1679058 otq 1607592 JonathanNolen TS 1570254 gdj 36337 vwq 632719 LE 1724691 brendotroy AF 1182168 qhh 697251 AM 318321 PrincessDiz mjc 1475751 egb 1714360 dhj 99489 tzk 1808985 CC 971193 epchris vjq 1609773 crowdozer ynx 1236638 JS 312445 proc113 fcp 1419757 KB 623675 AC 637001 MW 1368221 SB 487869 semanticantics fmt 1818420 NeonMadman Neilwron FM 673190 AM 1345196 Samwar cbussa kidsleepy mrb712 qsf 1282409 E.Z. AG 1199516 Wimzy ikn 22010 Up to 50 people shown» Reviewed by 19 people
it's like I just watched 94 minutes of a cult advertisement that I just don't get. It tries, but ultimately unsatisfying.- Craiglet
The Fountain is a bit of a mixed bag. At its heart, it is a love story, but it also has some science fiction and fantasy elements, which makes classifying the movie as any one particular genre difficult. Unfortunately, I think this aspect hinders the movie from being really good. The film is presented in three different time periods. Tomas (Hugh Jackman) is a 16th century Conquistador on a hunt to retrieve sap from the mythical Tree of Life for his queen (Rachel Weisz), who is desperate for immortality. In 2005, Tom (Jackman) is a doctor searching for the cure to cancer to save the life of his wife Izzi (Weisz), who is in the final days of her battle with death. Then, many years later, Tom travels through space on a quest to reach the place of tranquility that Izzi spoke fondly of, using the Tree as a device to get him to the answers he needs to finally rest. The various elements of the story, including time, immortality, love and spirituality form a story that is challenging and demanding to the viewer of the film. Although these elements are a great strength to the movie by making it such a unique film, they also drag the movie down too. In the end I felt that there was very little actual story presented and a whole lot of mildly confusing filler and visual imagery. The story itself needed to be grander to fit the epic scale of time that the film spans. Also, it may frustrate some viewers that the ending is not very clear. There are a lot of different ways that you can fit the various pieces of the movie together based on the ending of this film. Overall, I liked the Fountain. There are some great performances from both Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. If the story was just a little more clear and well developed and there was more reason to care about the characters plights, I would have liked it a lot more.
- Paul & Mags
I gave it one star because I didn't like it. I didn't "get it" though it was NOT a bad movie. I think the lack is my part rather than the movie because it IS visually stunning and thought provoking - stimulating emotionally and physically... but it wasn't "entertaining."
- BH 1126864
Some of the best cinematography I've ever seen. This movie just oozes onto your eyes. This is art with a celluloid canvas. The story development was incredibly weak. In addition, it was initially confusing and paced poorly.
- Rich311
I liked this movie, but I can't give it more than three stars because of the weirdness factor. It's definitely worth a look, because it's so imaginative and spiritual and romantic. The images alone are so amazing on the big screen that they are worth the price of admission. It has several layers of meaning which can be interpreted different ways, mainly through Eastern philosophy. Themes include loss, longing, fear of death, and love.
- NetflixFan
This movie is like a episode of Seinfeld, a movie about nothing. Not really a plot or anything, which is a movie about nothing.
- CG 823877
"Artsy" and a tad pretentious, but still an excellent and beautiful sci-fi tone poem about life, death, and rebirth. Yes, it has a narrative - but what "really" happened is not as important as the "feel" of the piece. Affects you more on an emotional level. Beautifully shot. Great cast, too. As a side note, most of the effects are "practical" and not CGI. Very well done.
- Jack Bunny
I respect Aronofsky's noble effort to make a bold poetic film, but ultimately it's a grand failure.
- Pat X
This movie was visually stunning, well-acted, and complemented with an excellent musical score. The story was relatively simple I thought, and telling the same story over three different periods made it interesting. The director and writers avoided two major weaknesses of artsy films: at no point was I confused about the story, and they ended after 90 minutes. A lesser film would have rambled and lost the audience, but this one did a suberb job of making an artistic statement without losing my attention.
- JM 1631250
This movie is actually 3 parallel stories spanning an enormous period of time. In each story Tommy is trying to save his wife from cancer. In one story he searches for a legendary Tree of Life in the 16th century as a conquistador, in another he searches for a cure as a present day scientist, and in yet another he searches the galaxy as a 26th century astronaut. The visuals and CGI in this movie are absolutely beautiful. The imagination poured into the visual part of this film was very impressive. Acting was also quite well done by both Jackman and Weisz. Most of the other characters are superficial at best. I was amazed at the range Jackman has as an actor. As for the plot, I hated and loved it both. I had a hard time getting into the movie in the beginning but after about 40 minutes I was hopelessly hooked. The switching between timelines is difficult to follow yet there are ties between each storyline. This is not a film you should watch purely for entertainment purposes. Nor should you only plan to watch this one once. You are going to have to think, hard, to enjoy this film. I think most people could probably watch this movie several times and still find new things as well as develop new theories and concepts around the psychology of the film itself. Ive seen reviews arguing that the timelines are actually somewhat sequential and others insisting this is a love story, and yet others insisting Tommy and Izzi are living sequential lives together forever with death being the catalyst to the next life. Interestingly enough, all are valid theories and it would be easy to come up with a dozen more. Although a bit difficult to follow at times, the originality of telling a story in this manner made this a very good movie that Ill enjoy watching again. No nudity and very little foul language although there is a bit of violence. Preens and older should be fine with this one although younger audiences may not find it very interesting.
- DocsReviews
This movie was rated very highly by many other "netflixers", but I honest missed the point of this movie and it wasn't from lack of trying. The whole of the movie is broken into 3 timelines of the same person spanning thousands of years looking for the tree of life to save his wife. Sounds good doesn't it! Unfortunately the story does not glue this timeline together well, and I had a very hard time staying interested throughout. I will say one good thing in closing the graphics and special effects were astonishing.
- Partypeanut
Awe-inspiring, spiritual, artistically and emotionally layered, and visually stunning! The previews only hint at the sublime (and subliminal) beauty of the scenes, the visual poetry of the overlays that link and interrelate scenes throughout this film, the sonorous texture of the soundtrack music, and the complex tapestry of the story as it unfolds and unravels across three eras -- from a terrestrial beginning to a cosmic rebirth. The visual effects are captivating and essential to the story so they are more than eye candy, they develop (and reveal) the plot. (They esp. convey and interrelate textures better than anything you've yet seen.) Hugh Jackman acts his heart out as a Spanish conquistador loyal to his queen, a modern-day cancer researcher with a stricken wife, and a Moby-like spacefarer to the stars. In each segment (intricately and integrally interwoven), Jackman's persona (and esp. his love interest) is running out of time. Rachel Weisz is a vision of beauty across the ages and conveys her persona's motivations adequately. This film is Contact, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Mission, and almost every epic movie rolled into one. It will blow you away. "We are all made of stars!" 5 stars.
- robowriter
The real "story" of this movie seemed to be a meditation on reincarnation rather than time traveling as the blurb notes. I didn't see much traveling to previous times as much as I saw a soul becomming enlightened by understanding its previous lives. I think the main story took place on the tree bubble through the 24th century man and his flashbacks or memories. It was a confusing mish-mash of three life times (better direction may have helped here) held together by the idea that romantic love can transcend death. (Did this idea come out of grief?) Very romantic premise which was more fantasy than sci fi. That said, however I did enjoy the future world the best. That tree (which was the true "fountain" of this seemingly wrongly named movie) was quite amazing. Some interesting "bits" the movie asks one to consider: Death as disease, death as road to awe, human dependency on or symbiotic relationships with nature, the wisdom in ancient cultures, and the possibility of evolved or enlightened beings. I would give it 3.5 stars overall for the idea, which I felt could have been executed better, and the questions it asks, and the gorgeous cinematography.
- VJ Purplequeen
I must have tripped over the equinox or something. I came to the long delayed release of, "The Fountain," expecting some kind of costume drama about Ponce de Leon. Was I ever wrong! This is so, so much more! Writer-director Darren Aronofsky is one of my favorites. "Pi" and "Requiem for a Dream" may be amazing, but this time he has risen to a new plane. "The Fountain" is an exquisite art film cloaked in fantasy! This film is constructed from three stories. The most fundamental story is about Tom Verde (Hugh Jackman) who is a physician desperately striving to find a cure for Izzi, (Rachel Weisz) his dying wife. The next story belongs to Izzi. She's writing a book called The Fountain. It's about a conquistador whose queen sends him to find the Tree of Life. The sap of this mystical tree gives eternal life. The last story tells of a future man who speeds across the cosmos in a bubble that contains the Tree of Life... Place the stories in a container. Add a pinch of Buddhism, a sprinkling of Christianity and a hint of something Pagan. Shake gently and you'll pour out the knowledge that love can transcend death because death gives life meaning. The Fountain is awash with breathtaking imagery. Aronofsky uses a color palate whose warmth will follow you for days. The special effects in this film are perfect especially considering the budget. None of this would mean anything had Jackman and Weisz not given such marvelous performnaces. Masterful on so many levels, "The Fountain" may very well be Darren Aronofsky's defining work. I hope my thoughts are Helpful ~~~Wingz
- Wingz
Beautiful looking, but much of it takes place in either a dream or a fantasy. Besides being confusing, traversing time & space, it moves at a really slow pace, too. It reminded me of 2001: A Space Odyssey. So I agree with the earlier reviewer... this is a movie for someone stoned. Unfortunately I watched it sober.
- GS Chicago
I'd been very interested in this film from the time it began production. It's Aronofsky. He's no Scorsese, but I was excited. Pi is a great film and Requiem is problematic, but a good film nonetheless. Also the knowledge that it had taken him nearly six years to finish this film intrigued me. That said, the film is totally misrepresented by the trailer. It's not nearly as 'sci-fi' as they want you to think it's going to be. (Though not everyone will agree, I think it's a good thing). The film is beautifully shot, incredible landscapes and color washes. Jackman gives a solid performance. But Weisz's character is the stock, moderately eccentric woman that seems to be popping up more and more in American 'independent' cinema. She was Kate Winslet in Eternal Sunshine, was Julianne Moore in Children of Men, was Nora Zehtner in Brick. The story exists in three separate settings, 1500 CE Spain, present-day America, and an undefined futuristic sequence (which may or may not be nothing more than Hugh Jackman's character trying to deal with his life). These settings have nothing to do with time-travel or anything sci-fi at all, they are logical extensions of the psyche of these complex characters. It's high concept and interesting, well shot, and never really crosses any dangerous thresholds, into the realms of laborious exercises in cinematic experiments, but it's, nonetheless, problematic. So what do I think? See it. The whip shot motif is beautiful, good cinematography and an interesting screenplay, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that anyone would actually fall in love with the film.
- Dlukenelson
A scientist (Hugh Jackman) has a wife (Rachel Weisz) who is dying from a brain tumor. Through his work he is trying to find the cure for her disease. The movie tries too hard to show three parallel stories. Where each takes you gets too convoluted and not interesting. I felt that some scenes were even laughable and silly. Toward the end I just wanted it to be over. "Death is a disease, it's like any other. And there's a cure. A cure - and I will find it." See what I mean?
- Cleve1212
Okay all you have heard so far about this movie...is true. This movie is VERY VERY VERY boring. I have never wanted someone to die in a movie more then I did in this one (and i have seen Hilton in House Of Wax lol). The artistry of the movie is transcending and beautiful but the jumping around, the story itself, the inability to grasp what you are watching till about 3/4 of the way through the movie makes this movie long, boring and just plan waste of time. I won't even say put this at the bottom of the queue. I will say avoid at all costs.
- *~*Sullivans*~*
WOW. This movie is going to make you say "what the heck was that?" It is a story about death, but how death is only a door way, not and end. It is complicated and beautiful. It is abstract and very very bizarre. With three parallel stories that over lap, it is a very cerebral and abstract. The movie presents many philosophical and spiritual questions. It is very thought provoking. Watching this movie is worth film school study; you will want to sit at you desk with coffee and a note pad to take notes because this one is a lot to swallow. It is beautifully filmed and very well acted it requires at least two takes to follow along. The fact that it moves slowly, on top of that, make it even more challenging to keep my attention. That said, this is a love it or hate it film. Do not watch this right before bed if that is a time you are typically groggy. It is best to watch when you are very alert. If you enjoy the process of explicating a fascinating concept then you'll love this. If the film school study idea turns you off, this movie may as well. I felt it was a worthwhile labor. Enjoy. Hope this is Helpful!
- Phatz