How sad. This movie didn't do well (relatively speaking) in the US, and so the distributors (whoever they are) probably thought that the market in Malaysia wouldn't be that interested.
I guess they were right.
When we go for a movie, we expect everything to be explained in clear, understandable terms. The Fountain, however, is not such a movie.
This movie is complicated. It requires interpretation (gasp!). It is vague and ambiguous. Hence, not a movie you'd take your girlfriend out to.
How sad that our puny little minds are not worthy to think of such great things. Okay, maybe I went a little overboard.
Well, Hugh Jackman is Tomas/Tommy/Thomas. He finds the Tree of Life (The Fountain, truth be told, does not feature any fountain whatsoever). And we are treated to three seperate but interweaving narratives, him in the past, him in the present, him in the future.
This is where I throw in my first few criticisms. The scenes in the past (somewhere in ancient South America, where he is a Conquistador in a search for the Tree of Life) are very much dull and not very original. Slightly interesting yes, but not exceptional.
How about the present? This is where most of the personal story comes from. Thomas (a doctor) tries to save his dying wife, Izzy.
And then the future, where most of the awesome visual effects can be scene. He is now bald, traveling in a bubble through space, and doing yoga (something very much derided by critics!).
He carries with him the Tree of Life (talks to it, and eats of it), bringing it to another far away nebula. He is tormented by hallucinations (?) of his dying wife.
Some of this is interpretation on my part, as some scenes are very vague. Baffling is the word, should an ordinary (i.e. just there to relax, not to think too hard, here for the fun, give me something good) kind of movie goer, which is incidentally encompasses 90% (or more) of our population.
Don't expect an easily coherent narrative, and this could either be the movie's worst flaw, or its best aspect (most critics lean toward the former). I personally think it is the latter, although I do agree it should have been a little clearer. I was, very often, left baffled myself.
Oh yes, the visual effects. If you hate such stories, then at least feast yourself on the fantastic (all the more, considering that almost all of it is not CGI) scenes.
The ending of the show is both confusing and brilliant (confusing storywise, brilliant visually). I have tried to find some interpretations, but most don't go into enough detail. I myself am not sure about what happens in the end (and for that matter, throughout) the movie, but I'm pretty sure, for the most part, it was great, contemplatively so.
I suppose it will clear up after a few viewings (which would make my rating for it so much better) or just stay as confusing (then it fully deserves its poor critical ratings).
Darren Aranovsky (the director) attempted to make a new kind (genre breaking) title, but I don't think he quite succeeded. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey, it is hard to understand. Which is why it was derided by many. But as you well know, in the years to come the latter movie became an all time great. Perhaps The Fountain will be as lucky, perhaps it won't. We can only wait and see, and ponder it's meaning.
The Thoughtful Critic: A-
The Relaxed Moviegoer: C+
(Note: The above two ratings reflect a new rating system I thought up: what the critical side in me thinks, as well as the "just want to be entertained" side in me opines. I suppose those two different sides of rating will help add some clarity.)
I guess they were right.
When we go for a movie, we expect everything to be explained in clear, understandable terms. The Fountain, however, is not such a movie.
This movie is complicated. It requires interpretation (gasp!). It is vague and ambiguous. Hence, not a movie you'd take your girlfriend out to.
How sad that our puny little minds are not worthy to think of such great things. Okay, maybe I went a little overboard.
Well, Hugh Jackman is Tomas/Tommy/Thomas. He finds the Tree of Life (The Fountain, truth be told, does not feature any fountain whatsoever). And we are treated to three seperate but interweaving narratives, him in the past, him in the present, him in the future.
This is where I throw in my first few criticisms. The scenes in the past (somewhere in ancient South America, where he is a Conquistador in a search for the Tree of Life) are very much dull and not very original. Slightly interesting yes, but not exceptional.
How about the present? This is where most of the personal story comes from. Thomas (a doctor) tries to save his dying wife, Izzy.
And then the future, where most of the awesome visual effects can be scene. He is now bald, traveling in a bubble through space, and doing yoga (something very much derided by critics!).
He carries with him the Tree of Life (talks to it, and eats of it), bringing it to another far away nebula. He is tormented by hallucinations (?) of his dying wife.
Some of this is interpretation on my part, as some scenes are very vague. Baffling is the word, should an ordinary (i.e. just there to relax, not to think too hard, here for the fun, give me something good) kind of movie goer, which is incidentally encompasses 90% (or more) of our population.
Don't expect an easily coherent narrative, and this could either be the movie's worst flaw, or its best aspect (most critics lean toward the former). I personally think it is the latter, although I do agree it should have been a little clearer. I was, very often, left baffled myself.
Oh yes, the visual effects. If you hate such stories, then at least feast yourself on the fantastic (all the more, considering that almost all of it is not CGI) scenes.
The ending of the show is both confusing and brilliant (confusing storywise, brilliant visually). I have tried to find some interpretations, but most don't go into enough detail. I myself am not sure about what happens in the end (and for that matter, throughout) the movie, but I'm pretty sure, for the most part, it was great, contemplatively so.
I suppose it will clear up after a few viewings (which would make my rating for it so much better) or just stay as confusing (then it fully deserves its poor critical ratings).
Darren Aranovsky (the director) attempted to make a new kind (genre breaking) title, but I don't think he quite succeeded. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey, it is hard to understand. Which is why it was derided by many. But as you well know, in the years to come the latter movie became an all time great. Perhaps The Fountain will be as lucky, perhaps it won't. We can only wait and see, and ponder it's meaning.
The Thoughtful Critic: A-
The Relaxed Moviegoer: C+
(Note: The above two ratings reflect a new rating system I thought up: what the critical side in me thinks, as well as the "just want to be entertained" side in me opines. I suppose those two different sides of rating will help add some clarity.)
No comments:
Post a Comment