Thursday, November 23, 2006

The Fountain - a movie review


The best part of seeing The Fountain was the $4.00 Pepsi fountain drink I bought. And I HATE Pepsi.

8 comments:

R. Mansfield said...

You bought? I think I handed you that $5. See, that's why I love winter--so I can sneak can cokes in the theater in my inside coat pocket.

Sorry again about the movie selection.

ajlin said...

could you elaborate?
b/c my wife and i wanted to see that movie, but this is the 2nd negative movie review of read about it.

Kathy Mansfield said...

I couldn't follow the plot, actually. The story hopped around between past, present, and future, and NO explanation was given. I left the movie not knowing what really happened. Other reviewers don't seem to agree about the plot, either.

Here's a link to a more detailed review:
http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/20051124_the_fountain.html

Anonymous said...

Kathy,

At least your concession stand didn't give you the wrong drink! Mine gave me sweet instead of diet coke and made my diabetic self miss several scenes of "Casino Royale" for urgent bathroom trips.

I refuse to see "The Fountain" outside a cheap rental just because of reviews like yours.

Chuck Grantham

Kathy Mansfield said...

Chuck, I'd be anxious to hear your thoughts about the movie after it makes its way to rental.

Sorry you missed some of the fabulous Bond flick!

Anonymous said...

I think people are not catching on.

This movie isn't going to do you any favors, you have to bring something to it to enjoy and understand. Too many movies now day’s spoon feed you everything, it was refreshing to see a movie that challenged this.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
The past wasn't really the past, it was the story that Izzi was writing; basically it is her perception of things in the present in the form of a story. And the future was not really the future but instead a symbolic representation of Tom's life, aka his perception; in a bubble isolating himself from civilization caring only for the tree which represented Izzi, his reason and purpose he lives. The present was the only time period that actually existed. I think what they wanted you to take from this movie was a new way to look at life and death in how it relates to the fountain of youth or living forever.

R. Mansfield said...

Well, we knew that the past was Izzi's writing. That's a given. What so amazing is that the movie has been promoted--even in interviews with the actors--as taking place in three realms including the future. In fact, the future is always referred to as in the year 2500 or thereabouts. But as I mentioned in my review on my blog, the movie never says that, and obviously the character in the bubble is Tom Creo. But in my opinion, Aronofsky was trying too hard and came up with a movie that is nigh unwatchable. He was supposedly trying to create a science fiction tale post-Matrix, but I believe he fails miserably. There's a number of directions that the story could have gone that might have made it interesting, but ultimately, it never delivers.

Anthony said...

(Anonymous said...

I think people are not catching on.)

Well said, this movie is not for the non imaginitive. everyone has no imaginiation anymore, this is a society of quick fixes, and fast food. so exactly why would anyone want to set there fat butt down long enought to add eggs to the mix when you can go get the one you can just add water.

Countdown to Elianna!