Has anyone picked this one up yet?

I havent seen any buzz about it and I wanted to know how the picture quality is.

its no reference disc, but its not THAT bad


sometimes you expect it to go 3d and it doesnt, but its much better looking than the dvd side, which is real ugly

I gave it a low Tier 2 in the Tier review. Well below something like a V for Vendetta.

I bought this today and will add my 2 cents later. I have a hard time believing that this disc doesn't look very good, but heh...

Just finished watching it. Picture quality wasn't anything great, but nothing bad either. I did like the music soundtrack though.

And could someone please explain this movie. At the end I sat there thinking WTF. Kinda reminded me of an acid trip on Sunday, but only quicker.

Just finished watching it. Picture quality wasn't anything great, but nothing bad either. I did like the music soundtrack though.

And could someone please explain this movie. At the end I sat there thinking WTF. Kinda reminded me of an acid trip on Sunday, but only quicker.


Yeah, I was following it up until he seperated from the bubble and got melted by the Supernova. Why did he seperate from the bubble?


Anyways, Tier 2 isn't bad picture quality. It's just clean with nothing extraordinary.

I picked it up this morning and I must say its not a movie for me. As far as PQ goes it was ok nothing major, and for the sound it seemed very soft to me. I found myself raising up the volume during conversations and where I thought it should sound very good the softness just through everything off.

FYI THE FOUNTAIN does not play on the Toshiba HDA-20 (firmware 1.5)

Yeah, I was following it up until he seperated from the bubble and got melted by the Supernova. Why did he seperate from the bubble?For those of us who haven't seen it yet, I hope you're not giving anything important away.

Please Stop Discussing The Plot Without Spoiler Tags.

Netflixed and it is on the way! :)

It did not load on the 360 the first time. I got it to load, but it was hit and miss. Once it loaded, it played through without skips.

This was the first Warner combo I had problems with.

Chalk another one up for combos. Now they are releasing 300 in COmbo format. :mad:

Very good film with a pretty good transfer. Kind of requires multiple viewings to absorb it all. :) Mine played flawlessly via XA-1 with 2.2 fw.

Mine showed up this morning from amazon.com I'll be watching it wed night with the wifey.
Also picked up bikini destinations triple threat.

Very good film with a pretty good transfer. Kind of requires multiple viewings to absorb it all. :) Mine played flawlessly via XA-1 with 2.2 fw.
Its a very touching film that at its heart is about the never ending love and sacrifice of the two main characters.

Having seen the film in the theater the HD-DVD's transfer is right on the money.

It also played flawlessly in my XA1 with 2.2 firmware.

The soundtrack is awesome. The story is confusing, but if you stayed focus, you should be okay. Like someone have stated before, the soundtrack really helped this movie tremendously. It is definitedly worth picking it up for the story and the soundtrack along.

As for the PQ, many scenes are a bit too dark that details started to fade into the oblivion. Other than that, everything else look pretty good. Just don't expect any surprises. :)

The Extra materials are very good and fun to watch, I hightly recommended.

AND YES, I will watch this movie again, and again. Doesn't matter that I know the ending, it is simply a unique movie that will require many viewings to absorb the whole story completedly. :)

Mine showed up this morning from amazon.com I'll be watching it wed night with the wifey.
Also picked up bikini destinations triple threat.

I suppose your gonna watch triple threat with her too. Aren't you the romantic? :) Very niiice.

Please Stop Discussing The Plot Without Spoiler Tags.


Wait a minute. This movie actually had a plot? Really glad it was only a rental, because I sure as heck didn't get it.

Didn't load on 360 the 2nd time. 3rd was ok again after 1st time. Picture is soft.

Too dark - it was very frustrating and took away from the enjoyment of the movie.

Watched it last night. No clue?
spoiler tages I guess or hope....not that it would even matter...
what is the deal with the tree in the bubble? is that even happening? is that part of the story that his wife wrote? what about the quest for the tree of life? is that even rearl? WTF? I'm lost on this one?

anyone else have an HD-A20 and have loading probs?

Having problems playing on the Xbox HD-DVD add on. I tried it about three or four times, and kept getting "no disk read" error. I took it to BB and it played fine on a Toshiba, tried it twice there, so I figured there was no reason to exchange it. Must be an Xbox problem. Guess I'll hold onto it and see if any new updates come from MS.

Had a terrible time playing the Heart HD-DVD, also. With the new update this week, it solved the problem with that disk.

Watched it last night. No clue?


I googled it and wikipedia actually has a fair synopsis of the film.

imdb has some additional info about the film.


By the way, I loved the movie!

anyone else have an HD-A20 and have loading probs?

I have an A2 and The Fountain will not load. You're not alone.

Just finished watching it on my Hda20 w/o a single hiccup using 1.5. I have been very lucky-no problems with any discs incl. CoM, S.aces and The GShepherd..

I loved the movie and thought it looked absolutely spectacular. I suspect those that didn't like the PQ didn't like the fact that most scenes are very dark.

If you've seen Requiem for a Dream, then you will understand when I say that this film is emotionally draining and difficult to watch. Not for everyone.

On my A1 with 2.2 firmware, I had 1 brief 2 second hiccup near the 100 minute mark, but otherwise playback was flawless.

edit: and as others have mentioned, the music is just amazing...

Also, plays fine on my 360 add on.

So I guess we contact WB if the disc isn't working. Anyone know who to contact?

Thanks for the feedback guys. Unfortunately I had trouble finding it yesterday and was not willing to pay 34.99 at BB,so I'll amazon or netflix it.

Mine just shipped. Requiem... is one of my favorite movies ever, so I can't wait to see how this one turns out.

Watched my copy last night and was extremely pleased. The visuals were generally very dark which allowed contrast and color to be used to great effect. I would have liked more detail but it appeared to be intentionally softened. Grain was very natural.
The sound was always crisp and the rears made quite an impact in some scenes. Also, the music was excellent.
But most importantly, The Fountain is a great movie. This was only my first viewing but this film engaged me immediately. I believe repeat viewings will only improve my feelings. Honestly, I agree with everything said in the High-Def Digest (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/fountain.html). Except Ken's reasoning for giving the movie 3 stars because he knows some people will not like it. We all know the review is representative of your opinion and the potential feelings of someone else should have no bearing on your rating. It was a blind-buy for me, based off Aronofsky's prior work. I think everyone should see it. Whether that means rent or buy.

I couldn't get The Fountain HD-DVD to load on my Xbox 360 HD-DVD drive either. I have the 5/15/07 HD-DVD driver update. I tried rebooting, ejecting and reinserting, but nothing worked. Going to return it to Amazon

It played fine on my A1 (FW 2.0). I enjoyed the movie, but didn't think the picture was anything to wriite home about.
J

Just checked my tracking on this movie, and if you see below the movie is on quite a time warp. Maybe it is looking for true love. weird.


Track your package

Date Time Location Event Details
May 16, 2007 --- CINCINNATI OH US Departure Scan
December 31, 1969 03:59:59 PM US ---
May 16, 2007 --- US Carrier notified to pick up package

I picked it up this morning and I must say its not a movie for me. As far as PQ goes it was ok nothing major, and for the sound it seemed very soft to me. I found myself raising up the volume during conversations and where I thought it should sound very good the softness just through everything off.

Damnit, if you're going to give away plot elements then mark your comments with SPOILERS so that those of us who haven't seen it don't have anything given away.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Damnit, if you're going to give away plot elements then mark your comments with SPOILERS so that those of us who haven't seen it don't have anything given away.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


Where are there any plot elements in his post?

Fwiw, the movie looked like this in the theater when I saw it. Excellent representation. What people think of this measured on a general scale is a different matter. If you watch some of the special features it becomes clear that the darkness in many scenes is intentional.

I can't play a pristine Netflix copy in my A2 w/ current firmware. I either get error code MSS 6 right away or I get 4086 4203 after it says "HDDVD". There's actually a very visible gap between the layers of plastic at the center hole of the disc. That's not supposed to be there, right?

Anyway, the DVD side plays OK, but that's NOT WHAT I RENTED. (The whole idea of a combo format is ludicrous anyway. If I want the DVD version I'll BUY the DVD version.)

I can't play a pristine Netflix copy in my A2 w/ current firmware. I either get error code MSS 6 right away or I get 4086 4203 after it says "HDDVD". There's actually a very visible gap between the layers of plastic at the center hole of the disc. That's not supposed to be there, right?

Anyway, the DVD side plays OK, but that's NOT WHAT I RENTED. (The whole idea of a combo format is ludicrous anyway. If I want the DVD version I'll BUY the DVD version.)

No problems on my A2 w/ v1.3.

By the way, what was the movie about???

I have read people either really love this film or they really hate it. Sounds interesting to me, when there is this much dichotomy in opinion for this film I will rent. This one is on my Netflix order. Thank gosh for rentals, can expose you to films you would never pay to see in the cinema.

Where are there any plot elements in his post?

He has since edited his post. Lets just say he gave away the ending of the movie without any warning.

By the way, what was the movie about???

That's a fair question. I've watched the movie three times now and each time I've had insights and made connections and understood a little more. Watch it again and see if it begins to make more sense to you.

I tend to enjoy the kind of movies that make me work a little rather than spoon feeding me a simple, linear, traditional plot. Aronofsky is not a Spielberg or a Lucas.

I believe that each viewer that enjoys this movie will understand it in their own way.

Cheers!

He has since edited his post. Lets just say he gave away the ending of the movie without any warning.

You quoted his edited post, as it also doesn't contain the plot elements.

Very good movie, thought provoking & touching.
This is an example of really great scifi that makes the viewer think. For me, the movie was not analytically philosophical, but evokes an emotional connection. The imagery was perfect for the message. My wife & I sat thoroughly involved for the entire movie.

PQ is spot on for me with the exception of some dark scenes, for which I compensated by boosting the black level. Audio & use of surrounds was great.

Ran just fine on a XA2 with FW 1.3
ss9001

Interesting movie. I agree that it deserves repeated viewings to get the different themes at work. Very different but not boring. Music is ethereal and very nicely woven into the movie.

I didn't think this film was as good as Darren Aronofsky's previous work, particularly "Requiem for a Dream", and at many parts was boring and repetitive.

What did surprise me is that the shots which I thought were CGI were actually "micro-photography of chemical reactions on tiny petri dishes" according to IMDB. That in itself is an achievement and makes it worthwhile for me to rewatch the film.

The HD-DVD's PQ, however, is not great. This disc could have definitely used a better transfer.

What did surprise me is that the shots which I thought were CGI were actually "micro-photography of chemical reactions on tiny petri dishes" according to IMDB. That in itself is an achievement and makes it worthwhile for me to rewatch the film.

IIRC, that or very similar technique was used in 2001, Space Odyssey during some of the stargate travel sequence segment. Which of course far pre-dates CGI.
ss9001

I was very pleased with The Fountain. It was a blind buy for me that I made at the last minute. I loved both Pi (my first DVD purchase) and Requiem, but I did not want to order this movie without seeing it first. I had it queued at Netflix, but it got added as a "Very Long Wait" and I ordered it from Amason with overnight delivery (PRIME). I figured if the movie was not worth owning I'd just eBay it and hope to get $20+ for it (basically making it a rental). I have to say that this is one of the best movies available on HD-DVD. The special effect and very unique and the movie is by far the most original HD-DVD I own (Eternal SUnshine is close). I am very, very happy with this blind buy and cannot believe I doubted it's quality.

He has since edited his post. Lets just say he gave away the ending of the movie without any warning.

Darn, and I missed it! It would have saved me some time. Netflix rental, plays fine on my XA1 FW 2.2, PQ not anything to write home about, but I suppose that's the Director's "artistic intention" - his other movie "PI" that everyone raves about was Filmfest HD channel last night. I tried watching the last few minutes of it - B&W, fuzzy, hand-held camera sequence of someone chasing somebody through a subway station. I quickly switched to something more engrossing, I think it was Jeopardy!


I've tried nights in a row to make it through The Fountain, without success. Just boring. Maybe I'll just fast forward to the ending tonight. :rolleyes:

Maybe I'll just fast forward to the ending tonight. :rolleyes:

Do not bother! If you did not like the movie the ending is not going to help you as it is not a real resolution in the conventional sense. I loved the movie for what it is: a fairly moving tale of eternal love and insurmountable death with beautiful imagery and excellent soundtrack. Yes one could philosophize about various points of the movie but I think that the movie is fairly disjointed to appeal to most people. The philosophy is a bit heavy-handed! I recommend a rental before buy because it is a love hate type of movie. Most people will dislike it!

Damnit, if you're going to give away plot elements then mark your comments with SPOILERS so that those of us who haven't seen it don't have anything given away.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


I just simply don't get people who read threads about movies they haven't seen yet. I deliberately didn't start reading this thread until I finished watching the movie. Now that I've seen the movie, I would like to see what people thought about it. And I don't mean by having to highlight a bunch of frakin' spoiler tags! I mean after all, if you don't discuss the plot elements and other 'spoilers', what the hell is there to talk about? Video and Sound Quality? That should take a whole whopping half of a page.

Good grief. :rolleyes:

We rented it and that was a great thing!

This movie was just awful. I'm one who watches movies from start to finish no matter how bad they are, but this one I actually hit stop as it was just so boring and off the wall. Big Requiem fan, but this.... :( :confused:

The picture quality was not in the "HD league" either. It had some nice moments, but it looked like an upscaled SD DVD.

Saved me some combo cash! :p

I still don't even know what I watched. :confused:

I just simply don't get people who read threads about movies they haven't seen yet. I deliberately didn't start reading this thread until I finished watching the movie. Now that I've seen the movie, I would like to see what people thought about it. And I don't mean by having to highlight a bunch of frakin' spoiler tags! I mean after all, if you don't discuss the plot elements and other 'spoilers', what the hell is there to talk about? Video and Sound Quality? That should take a whole whopping half of a page.

Good grief. :rolleyes:

Yes I agree. The discussion is about The Fountain so you can EXPECT "spoilers." Having said that folks, there is no such thing as a "spoiler" in this movie as it is more complex than that.

Just read the review on dOc: 'A' across the board except B+ for extras:


Style
Grade Substance
Grade Image Transfer
Grade Audio Transfer
Grade Extras
Grade
A A- A- A B+

http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/showreview.php3?ID=9416

Just finished watching this. Though it is on the strange side, I thought the movie was awesome. The soundtrack is great. Don't believe the people saying that the PQ in this is lacking either. There are many spectacular shots in this, and overall I'd put it in Tier 1/high Tier 2.

My copy arrived yesterday and I watched it last night. No playback problems at all with my HD-XF2 (never had any with Warner titles). Very interesting story. I did feel that some parts worked perfectly while some did not. In any case, this demands multiple viewings. I'm a fan of Requiem and Pi as well.

PQ was not very impressive in the dark scenes, but I guess it goes back to original source. In well lit scenes it was fine.

Having seen the film in the theater the HD-DVD's transfer is right on the money.

It could be that the flat contrast and grain in most of the movie were intentional. In that case the HD transfer would be faithful to the theatrical presentation. The parts in the future seemed pretty detailed, if not razor sharp.

The separation sequence was explained in the museum.

In any case, this demands multiple viewings.

I concur. I saw it at the theater and was unimpressed. Second time (at home on HD DVD) I was deeply moved.

Though I still doubt whether to interpret parts of the movie, especially the future section. I think Mark Zimmer on the digitallyobsessed review explains it very well:


While the relationship between the past and the present stories is somewhat straightforward, the third and future story throws everything else into question. Is this actually Tommy, having made himself immortal? A reincarnation of Tomas (or both Tomas and Tommy)? Or Tommy's wish fulfillment dream of trying to reach beyond death, fueled by love and will? There's plenty of ambiguity here, and The Fountain offers plenty of possibilities for metaphysical discussions.

What did surprise me is that the shots which I thought were CGI were actually "micro-photography of chemical reactions on tiny petri dishes" according to IMDB. That in itself is an achievement and makes it worthwhile for me to rewatch the film.
There are special features covering this right on the disc :p

Including a 1080p montage of macro photography.

Please Stop Discussing The Plot Without Spoiler Tags.


there is a plot? I don't understand this movie at all. They might as well have the entire script written in Oromo. :p

I gotta be honest...
If I was reading a thread about a movie that people were avidly discussing, I don't think I would just come out and admit "I just didn't get it at all"... :p

Seriously, it wasn't that complicated, if you read or watch much sci-fi (or other serious film making).

in fact, it was a little predictable, which would be my only critique. About 15 minutes into the movie, I turned to my wife and said, "I know what's going to happen, all the way to the end. You?". She said, "yep". That being said, we still enjoyed Aranofsky's realization of the story on film. By the way, I think Aranofsky borrowed a lot of imagery from writer Dan Simmons.

ONe short scene - the absolute final one - didn't jibe with my extrapolation of the plot, however. If what the plot was leading us to understand happened, then that last scene SHOULDn"T have happened.

Anyone want to chime in on that particular aspect?

Cheers

TSO - I think the future scenes were pure fantasy or perhaps even him fleshing out the rest of her book. When he came the conclusion to let go, thus freeing both the dead Izzy and himself, he was able to accept the "death becomes life" philosophy. When he planted the seed in the present timeline, he was providing closure for Izzy's death.

It's quite possible I'm completely off-base... I'm not sure there is a definitive answer. The end definitely leaves you with more questions than answers.

I loved the movie, and I can't explain why. I have never seen another Aronosky film so i have nothing to compare it to.
I know I am not comparing apples to apples, but my family loves The Notebook type films which I don't care for. The Fountain drew me in unlike any other love story. One mans fight to save the woman he loves. I actually felt as if I was in Hugh Jackmans shoes.

I was suprised to see this movie rated as tier 3. I though it was spectacular. Far better than Scooby Doo's tier rating.

Another example of how useless the tier rating can be. The DVD looked EXACTLY like it did in the theater. The scenes with low contrast looked just like that on the big screen. The softer shots looked just like that on the big screen.

I gotta mention, one of the final scenes has some bass that was really intense. I have an Hsu VTF-2 set to max extension and I don't think I've ever heard it go that low. I'd probably get knocked off the couch if I had a sub that could better handle sub-20hz freqs.

I just simply don't get people who read threads about movies they haven't seen yet. I deliberately didn't start reading this thread until I finished watching the movie. Now that I've seen the movie, I would like to see what people thought about it. And I don't mean by having to highlight a bunch of frakin' spoiler tags! I mean after all, if you don't discuss the plot elements and other 'spoilers', what the hell is there to talk about? Video and Sound Quality? That should take a whole whopping half of a page.

Good grief. :rolleyes:
Good grief, indeed! LOTS of people who haven't seen a film read threads like this
because
1. They want to find out if they'd like the film in question and whether to rent before buying.

2. They want to know about the PQ and AQ!

It played great on my XA2 and looked great on my 61-inch DLP 1080P Sammy.
A great film and a great example of a top-notch HD DVD presentation. :)

Just re-watched it, and have an explanation for the final scene - I was forgetting the general conceit of the film; three stories, told out of time-line.

I think him planting the seed was simply to bring closure to the "present" story line, to show us which tree exactly he chose to travel with, and to explain his somewhat "intimate" communications with the tree while travelling.

Hope there's no atcual spoilers in the above - to lazy to do spoiler tages :)

Darren Aronofsky, on his Myspace blog (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=109383286&blogID=265135886&Mytoken=F8EDC338-B0E8-4349-90E4E3FD45F6E4EF93833004), says he is going to do a separate commentary for this movie that you could probably download on his site later. Apparently he had a hard time with Warner making the disc.

If they don't get the sales to justify a new version, I hope Warner would enable downloadable commentaries and content because he says he has a lot of extras.

I loved the movie, and I can't explain why. I have never seen another Aronosky film so i have nothing to compare it to.
I know I am not comparing apples to apples, but my family loves The Notebook type films which I don't care for. The Fountain drew me in unlike any other love story. One mans fight to save the woman he loves. I actually felt as if I was in Hugh Jackmans shoes.

I was suprised to see this movie rated as tier 3. I though it was spectacular. Far better than Scooby Doo's tier rating.


you gotta check out his other two, Pi and Requiem for a Dream. Requiem is one of my all time favorites.

I really liked the movie. I also thought there were scenes that looked amazing in HD. Yet I know a couple people who really disliked it. Guess its just one of those types that polarizes the viewing audience.

Spoilers
Like other people I was left with a bunch of questions after this movie....but the real big one that I have is why did the mayan guy see jackman as the guy from the future and think it was the first father and then offered himself as sacrfice? I really didnt get that at all. And why did eating the bark mean? I think a lot of the movie is strange just to be strange so that its open to interpetation. What I got out of it. was that it was about immoratilty in the sense of everything being as one, everthing being a part of the earth or all of life in one way or another. I thought it was also about accepting death and having to be ok with yourself as a person to be able to do that. All in all I thought it was ok but I bought the movie for my wife. Its really not my thing.

This was a very good movie. I suppose I can understand the mixed reviews to this film but taken as a whole it is very well done. I think the simplest way to absorb the film is just to approach it as a love story. But if you are willing to dig deeper, there is definitely more to it. Much like A Scanner Darkly in that regard. On the surface, a bit scattered, but rewarding for those with some patience and imagination.

It thought it was gonna be a time travel movie, but it turned out to be a reincarnation movie ... I think.

I think flyersfan interpretation is dead on. The separate storylines shouldn't be taken literally. A second or third viewing really helps... and this is one of those movies that gets better with each viewing. Jackman's journey in the futuristic scenes ends with a rebirth of his soul... he can now move on with his life after accepting what has happened to Izzy.

The HD-DVD faithfully captures how this movie looked when I saw it in the theater. Beautiful.

anyone else have an HD-A20 and have loading probs?

I have the A20 in my master bedroom and movie played without issue. I just wish the movie was better. :rolleyes:

Watched the first 1/2 tonite. Very interesting and it seems obvious that the soft photography was intentional in many scenes...
Not every film has to be a 3-d theme park ride....

Just re-watched it, and have an explanation for the final scene - I was forgetting the general conceit of the film; three stories, told out of time-line.

I think him planting the seed was simply to bring closure to the "present" story line, to show us which tree exactly he chose to travel with, and to explain his somewhat "intimate" communications with the tree while travelling.

Hope there's no atcual spoilers in the above - to lazy to do spoiler tages :)

Don't think spoilers are possible in this movie. Unlike most movies with nice symmetrical endings there is several currents of thought running through this movie which needs to be discussed openly.

Just watched this movie and I must say I loved it. FWIW, here's what I think the movie's about:


There are three stories. The first (the Spanish/Mayan setting) is fictional and is Jackman's reverie of the story in his wife's book. Jackman transposes himself and his wife as the main characters of the story. The second is real and takes place in the present day where Weisz's character is dying. The third is also real and takes place in the future.

The story concerns the fundamental debate on the meaning of life and death where the opposing views are espoused by the Weisz and Jackman characters. Whereas Weisz accepts (and even invites) her mortality, Jackman will never "go gently into that good night". Life is everything to Jackman and the inevitible passing of his wife is a huge trauma. Thus driven, his research leads to his eventual discovery of immortality.

As suggested by her book, he plants the seed of a tree at her grave. As he ages, never to die, the tree grows.

Now, as told in her book, and according to Mayan legend, all souls go to that star in the Orion constellation (don't remember the name of the star) and its eventual collapse and explosion will bring about their rebirth. Many years into the future, he's still alive as is the fully mature tree that has grown from his wife's grave. In this future, technology has developed to the point where man has the ability to travel to other stars. He loads himself and his wife's tree into a spaceship (the bubble) and heads to the star to await its supernova explosion; an event that he hopes will bring his wife back. Only problem, the tree/wife dies just as he's about to reach his destination. Having nothing left to live for, he finally accepts death and sends himself into the exploding star and oblivion.

This is a story with the fundamental question: If you could live forever, would you want to?

BTW, not a great insight, but I think that the "Fountain" in the title is an obvious allusion to the mythical "Fountain of Youth".


This movie has a nice slant on one of scifi's greatest themes (immortality) and is wonderfully presented by Aronofsky in a very artistic and ethereal manner.

rented this from netflix-no problem on XA-2-picture quality was ok-definitely not the best HD presentation I have seen-but wasn't expecting it to be either. The movie itself I didn't really like it, sure it was different- but couldn't quite get into it.
thetman

Flave - I disagree somewhat with your interpretation, but please don't mistake this for me saying you're wrong. Your linear explanation is basically how I felt the first time I viewed it.

After watching it again at home and taking into account the very last scene, I came up with a slightly more convoluted but more gratifying (to me) interpretation. As with most films of this type, the literal exposition has a certain satisfaction but digging deeper usually reveals greater meaning.

I watched this a few weeks ago, and really, really liked it. It is "my type of movie" - non-linear plot, philosophical ideas postulated in a subtle manner, and good acting. I had only briefly heard of the film when it was released in the theaters (and promptly forgot about it), and when it was announced for HD DVD I had to research about it a bit before taking the plunge and buying it blind.

Certainly a film that some folks will just not enjoy, and I am OK with that. I do wish it had made more at the box office, so that more films like this can be made.

As to interpretations, Flave's description is one way of how I could interpret it, but flyersfan's interpretation is another way I saw it. I guess I like the film because the more I think about it, the more my interpretation mutates.

I hope the other two films (Pi and Requiem for a Dream) get the HD DVD treatment.

shinksma

I just watched The Fountain HD DVD last night, for the first time. I like the movie and plan to re-watch it at least 2 more times so it can all sink in. My initial impression is what flyersfan had interpreted. Now, after reading Flave's thoughts, I'm confused - because that explanation also makes a lot of sense to me. Of course, we'll probably never know the true meaning of this wonderfully, beautiful film, because it was left open to interpretation on purpose.

Hi Guys....
If you are interested, you can view this video:
The Fountain: Explanation by Aronofsky and Weisz (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Aronofsky-And-Weisz-Explain-The-Fountain-3394.html)

(Technically, both the past and future storyline were part of the book.)

Another example of how useless the tier rating can be. The DVD looked EXACTLY like it did in the theater. The scenes with low contrast looked just like that on the big screen. The softer shots looked just like that on the big screen.

I gotta mention, one of the final scenes has some bass that was really intense. I have an Hsu VTF-2 set to max extension and I don't think I've ever heard it go that low. I'd probably get knocked off the couch if I had a sub that could better handle sub-20hz freqs.


The bass was excellent.
This movie is a 5 on AQ for me just bewcause of the bass on the last scenes.

Ok, I had a choice, this or the matrix on Sunday. I choose this one. And boy way I not disappointed. Like one of the other poster said, " this is my type of movie" I was disappointed that I did not get a chance to see it in the theater but such is life some times. I watched it on my xbox 360 hd-drive and z5 on a 109 inch screen so I guess thats as close as im going to get for now. This movie make you think a lot about how things come togater in life and death. and does one lead to another. WOW just WOW. Looking through all the extras on the disc. i wish they had, had a blooper reel that would have been great.

steve

I liked this film a lot too, it is my kind of film as well. Any film which leaves me thinking about it long after is a great one for me.

My view was like FLAVR's.

I think the past was the book written by the wife.

The present was real. Jackman's character invented a compound that basically reversed aging. He was able to erase all signs of aging in the monkey. My feeling is that he took the compound, and that was why he was around for another 500 years.

As for the future, that was real also. The tree was the tree that Jackman planted on the grave of his wife. His wife told him a story of how when someone died they weren't really gone, because their essence passed into a tree planted on their grave. He planted the tree to hold her essence.

He then spent the next 500 years trying to bring her back, finally taking the tree to the nebula, and hoping for rebirth when the star exploded.

The ending makes sense when you see that he still didn't have an ending for the book in the future. (i.e. the ending of the past hadn't been written). His wife's ghost (his imagination) tells him to finish it, and that he knows the answer. In the end he finally realizes that the only way to be with his wife is to die, and that prolonging his life has only kept her from him. True rebirth occurs by passing through death. That is the whole point of the story of first father, who died to give birth to the world.

When Jackman finally realizes this, he finishes the story (therefor the ending of the past story) and gives his life in the supernova in the future, so he can pass through death to life with his wife.

The nice thing about this movie is that it is open to multiple interpretations. Aranofsky even says that in the wikipedia article, he says that he wanted it to be somewhat open to interpretation, and I like that.

Damn.... in 500 years, this guy couldn't find another woman? ;)

PQ nothing to write home about but I can say I am glad I didn't purchase it. It took me two days to watch it! My wife was complaining the whole time wanting to watch something else.

I would have loved to see a movie revolving around the events from Izzy's manuscript but with a more sensible ending. Overall, I thought the movie cliche, boring, and predictable. The "present" scenes were the worst with glaring instances of overacting compensating for a thin plot and thin character development. The hospital bedside scene with Izzy relating the story of her Mayan guide springs to mind. When she starts the story, Jackman's reaction is way too intense.

I have spent a good amount of time researching this on the net and watched a few videos of Daren and crew explain various things. Here's what I gleaned from the meaning of the movie.



Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)

The past was the book. This is outright said by the director. There is no ambiguity there. He also said that this was DEFINATELY NOT three timelines but one story with one timeline shown from different perspectives. There are not three Tommy's and there is not one Tommy that lived through all three or even the last two time lines. He also said it's basically a tragic love story between a dying woman and a man unwilling to give up in a search for immortality. So the dilema is really the future story. The way I see it, the book is her view of Tommy. The future is his view of himself struggling to save her. The tree has hair, just like her neck has hair. The tree dies when she dies. The future story is happening in sync with the realty. So, it's a metaphor for the future is his fear of death and his struggle to save her at all costs.

I think the give away that the future is not a real timeline is that when the star goes supernova in the future you also see the supernova happening from Tommy's viewpoint on Earth when he looks up after planting the tree at her grave. That means that all the future story ended when he planted the seed of the tree.

So what is the defining moment for Tommy? It's after her death when he is facing the Mayan with the flaming sword. Tommy first fights. After being stabbed he now has a choice of two possible futures. One is the Conquistidor route. That is the refusing to accept her death and going forward which would lead to his own death. Thus if he doesn't accept her death it will ruin him as a man. But he didn't choose that route. he remembers that the Mayan said something to the affect of "the first father will surrender". So, at the point when the sword would strike his neck he surrenders. He accepts her death. That is when he is floating. The Mayan let's him pass. We only see the rest of the Conquistidor story to see what would have happened to Tommy. Since that's not the choice he made the future story is really where Tommy goes. So Tommy, finally accepting her death, decides he is no longer afraid of death and goes into the supernova.

That is him finishing his previous life. That is the end of him struggling and his acceptance of her death. That signifies a rebirth. It also shows that he FINALLY got it and this time decided to go out with her to walk in the snow. It was then that he accepts her words and remembers what she said about the tree. She didn't give him the seed literally, he just remembered her talkign about the seed. And we see it becuase now he is in the light when he is at her grave.

It's a tragedy and struggle for which he finally overcomes.

The real tricky part is that everything makes sense up until he sees the supernova in the current timeline from Earth. That is what tells you that the entire future story was happening in his head concurrently with the present story.


What do you guys think?

I watched it, indeed diff style film, good scrore, good camera work, multi layered, story, in story, in story, in story..it will fly over the most I guess, but I did like it

Darn, and I missed it! It would have saved me some time. Netflix rental, plays fine on my XA1 FW 2.2, PQ not anything to write home about, but I suppose that's the Director's "artistic intention" - his other movie "PI" that everyone raves about was Filmfest HD channel last night. I tried watching the last few minutes of it - B&W, fuzzy, hand-held camera sequence of someone chasing somebody through a subway station. I quickly switched to something more engrossing, I think it was Jeopardy!


I've tried nights in a row to make it through The Fountain, without success. Just boring. Maybe I'll just fast forward to the ending tonight. :rolleyes:

ADD? ADHD?

I have spent a good amount of time researching this on the net and watched a few videos of Daren and crew explain various things. Here's what I gleaned from the meaning of the movie.



Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)

The past was the book. This is outright said by the director. There is no ambiguity there. He also said that this was DEFINATELY NOT three timelines but one story with one timeline shown from different perspectives. There are not three Tommy's and there is not one Tommy that lived through all three or even the last two time lines. He also said it's basically a tragic love story between a dying woman and a man unwilling to give up in a search for immortality. So the dilema is really the future story. The way I see it, the book is her view of Tommy. The future is his view of himself struggling to save her. The tree has hair, just like her neck has hair. The tree dies when she dies. The future story is happening in sync with the realty. So, it's a metaphor for the future is his fear of death and his struggle to save her at all costs.

I think the give away that the future is not a real timeline is that when the star goes supernova in the future you also see the supernova happening from Tommy's viewpoint on Earth when he looks up after planting the tree at her grave. That means that all the future story ended when he planted the seed of the tree.

So what is the defining moment for Tommy? It's after her death when he is facing the Mayan with the flaming sword. Tommy first fights. After being stabbed he now has a choice of two possible futures. One is the Conquistidor route. That is the refusing to accept her death and going forward which would lead to his own death. Thus if he doesn't accept her death it will ruin him as a man. But he didn't choose that route. he remembers that the Mayan said something to the affect of "the first father will surrender". So, at the point when the sword would strike his neck he surrenders. He accepts her death. That is when he is floating. The Mayan let's him pass. We only see the rest of the Conquistidor story to see what would have happened to Tommy. Since that's not the choice he made the future story is really where Tommy goes. So Tommy, finally accepting her death, decides he is no longer afraid of death and goes into the supernova.

That is him finishing his previous life. That is the end of him struggling and his acceptance of her death. That signifies a rebirth. It also shows that he FINALLY got it and this time decided to go out with her to walk in the snow. It was then that he accepts her words and remembers what she said about the tree. She didn't give him the seed literally, he just remembered her talkign about the seed. And we see it becuase now he is in the light when he is at her grave.

It's a tragedy and struggle for which he finally overcomes.

The real tricky part is that everything makes sense up until he sees the supernova in the current timeline from Earth. That is what tells you that the entire future story was happening in his head concurrently with the present story.


What do you guys think?

Good analysis. And since I had to turn the brightness way up on my TV/PC to watch this movie, I was able to read your post without the need to highlight.

Great thread on a thought-provoking film. I just read this thread after viewing the film for the first time and I must say that the film had me up through the night considering many different interpretations, similar to those of flave and flyersfan above. However, when I awoke in the morning, I settled on this one:

SPOILER highlight to read:

I will try to keep this as simple as possible, noting that many of the complexities in the storyline have been discussed previously.

From a chronological standpoint, I think that the only real story is the second - the first is the book as written by Izzy and the third, which is set in the future, is how he "finishes it". There is no ghost of Izzy, just the memories that haunt him as he finishes the book and accepts her death. I realize this is simplistic and certainly more tragic, but it is the interpretation I have settled on for now.

Is this better than 'Zardoz'?

Is this better than 'Zardoz'?
Yes...but then what isn't?

Potential spoiler.....dont read if you have not seen the film

Just got this after seeing it in the theater twice.

Gotta say visually this movie is stunning. The golden hue to everything, the ethereal way that Izzy is often lit in the non present day scenes. I think it's an outstanding tarnsfer that is very faithful to the way it looks in the theater.

OK SPOILER PART>>>>

As to the plot i think it all depends on your vantage point what the actual story is. The interpetation i have come to is that it might not always make literal linear sense.

It may be a lot more on the nature of love and loss and memory. If you have ever lost someone you truly love, you never really lose them. They keep coming back in memories (sustained or just a flash) your dreams (which often make no sense at all) and in similarities in people and events that trigger the same type of things.

The film maybe a lot about him trying to come to terms with losing her. He see's his struggle to save her as doctor in a sense like a conquistador trying to find eternal life and alternately in the zen like religous mediation he undertakes (maybe that will tell him why..)

I like it a lot and it is thought provoking and it nails the way memories of someone you love so much keep coming back to you regardless if they are welcome or not. The repeated scene where she wants him to go for a walk in the snow is the focal point for this. It's a great pain point for him that he cant shake becasue he know now that he missed a moment with someone that is now lost to him.

It's like a truly enduring love. It has a beginning and an end but the middle is not always linear and does not always make sense and has lots of starts, stops and starts again


Or maybe not... I'm sure if I watch it again i'l come up with somethig else. His first movie PI was like that as well, each time you watch it you take away somthing new

This was a blind buy for me, and I couldn't have been happier. Awesome PQ, great music, and of course a great plot.

I really like the below two posts. Both do such a good job convincing us of what are really two opposite theories that it's really hard to pick one.


I think the past was the book written by the wife.

The present was real. Jackman's character invented a compound that basically reversed aging. He was able to erase all signs of aging in the monkey. My feeling is that he took the compound, and that was why he was around for another 500 years.

As for the future, that was real also. The tree was the tree that Jackman planted on the grave of his wife. His wife told him a story of how when someone died they weren't really gone, because their essence passed into a tree planted on their grave. He planted the tree to hold her essence.

He then spent the next 500 years trying to bring her back, finally taking the tree to the nebula, and hoping for rebirth when the star exploded.

The ending makes sense when you see that he still didn't have an ending for the book in the future. (i.e. the ending of the past hadn't been written). His wife's ghost (his imagination) tells him to finish it, and that he knows the answer. In the end he finally realizes that the only way to be with his wife is to die, and that prolonging his life has only kept her from him. True rebirth occurs by passing through death. That is the whole point of the story of first father, who died to give birth to the world.

When Jackman finally realizes this, he finishes the story (therefor the ending of the past story) and gives his life in the supernova in the future, so he can pass through death to life with his wife.


Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)

The past was the book. This is outright said by the director. There is no ambiguity there. He also said that this was DEFINATELY NOT three timelines but one story with one timeline shown from different perspectives. There are not three Tommy's and there is not one Tommy that lived through all three or even the last two time lines. He also said it's basically a tragic love story between a dying woman and a man unwilling to give up in a search for immortality. So the dilema is really the future story. The way I see it, the book is her view of Tommy. The future is his view of himself struggling to save her. The tree has hair, just like her neck has hair. The tree dies when she dies. The future story is happening in sync with the realty. So, it's a metaphor for the future is his fear of death and his struggle to save her at all costs.

I think the give away that the future is not a real timeline is that when the star goes supernova in the future you also see the supernova happening from Tommy's viewpoint on Earth when he looks up after planting the tree at her grave. That means that all the future story ended when he planted the seed of the tree.

So what is the defining moment for Tommy? It's after her death when he is facing the Mayan with the flaming sword. Tommy first fights. After being stabbed he now has a choice of two possible futures. One is the Conquistidor route. That is the refusing to accept her death and going forward which would lead to his own death. Thus if he doesn't accept her death it will ruin him as a man. But he didn't choose that route. he remembers that the Mayan said something to the affect of "the first father will surrender". So, at the point when the sword would strike his neck he surrenders. He accepts her death. That is when he is floating. The Mayan let's him pass. We only see the rest of the Conquistidor story to see what would have happened to Tommy. Since that's not the choice he made the future story is really where Tommy goes. So Tommy, finally accepting her death, decides he is no longer afraid of death and goes into the supernova.

That is him finishing his previous life. That is the end of him struggling and his acceptance of her death. That signifies a rebirth. It also shows that he FINALLY got it and this time decided to go out with her to walk in the snow. It was then that he accepts her words and remembers what she said about the tree. She didn't give him the seed literally, he just remembered her talkign about the seed. And we see it becuase now he is in the light when he is at her grave.

It's a tragedy and struggle for which he finally overcomes.

The real tricky part is that everything makes sense up until he sees the supernova in the current timeline from Earth. That is what tells you that the entire future story was happening in his head concurrently with the present story.


What do you guys think?

Well, I liked the movie.........Took me 6 times to get it to play on the 360 HD drive (Rented so no big deal). I did notice that it played after I flipped it over and played the DVD side, it played right after that on the HD side....But anyway.......I thought it was a good movie......I didn't get it all at first, but after reading what you all wrote, it makes more sense to me now......