MovieChat Forums > The Fountain (2006) Discussion > Why the hell did you like this movie?

Why the hell did you like this movie?

posted 12 years ago by Astyan
69 replies | jump to latest

This is a real question, I'm interested. Because I find it really bad. I just don't understand how you could like it.
The story in the past manages to be both over-simplistic and underwhelming, yet it was still the one I preferred. The future story is terribly far fetched, and the present greys-anatomy-story let me voiceless.
When they found how to cure Izzi's disease 5 seconds after her final attack, the movie was just dead to me. I mean this is so cheap, I didn't expect that in an Aronofsky.

So if you like it please share your reason!
Are you religious? Are you a big fan of through-the-ages-love-stories? Do you like Wolverine?

[–] MarshallStax 12 years ago

Maybe try reading some of the threads on here for insight into why the film is loved by some people.

All Art is pretense.

[–] Qaoz 12 years ago

The Fountain is one of those movies that divide the waters. It either touches something in you, or it doesn't.

I don't really know what the point of your post is. Are you asking us to tell you why you should like it when you just said you don't like it? Or are you just trying to stir up *beep* by criticizing it for not appealing to your tastes?

[–] done_holding_back 11 years ago

Are you asking us to tell you why you should like it when you just said you don't like it?

This is my first time on the boards for The Fountain, and I'm sad to see that this seems to be the majority of threads. Folks don't enjoy it, which is fine, but they can't leave it at that. They have to pound on the door of those who did, demanding answers. It makes no sense. I didn't enjoy The Big Lebowski despite its huge popularity, but I'm not going to chase down all of its fans and insist that they tell me how to enjoy it.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] done_holding_back 11 years ago

I enjoyed it because I'm a hopeless romantic, and the love story spoke to me. I like the notion of a love that transcended time and death, and thought it was well-told.

[–] neardarkp 11 years ago

I loved this film and at the end was choked almost to tears and nothing really gets me like that, so I look to my partner and she says wow what a pretentious piece of crap I wish I could get those two wasted hours of my life back. Such a divider this movie and although me and her sometimes disagree she gives this a 1 me a 9

[–] jk-692-236394 11 years ago

Good point. We all see and interpret things differently. I did not enjoy the movie at all, but I embrace the variety of life from all of us having different views and experiences. Other wise how boring would life be?

[–] R_Redbeard 9 years ago

You shoulda canned that bitch right there and then.

“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."

[–] lockon_stratos 9 years ago

Your partner is too dramatic. The movie was about 90 minutes. Less without credits.

---

[–] mmnyc1823 11 years ago

Aside from the narrative of immortality, the fear and intense realization of death, the devotion between Izzy and Tom, the intelligent script, and mind-blowing soundtrack, it is also visually stunning, unlike any film I have seen before or probably will see in a long time.

As a previous poster noted, it either touches you or it doesn't. The first time I watched it, I thought it was a mess, slow, somewhat boring, and undecipherable. Upon giving it another chance, 3, 4, 5 times - it resonated. You have to work with this film. It is not for the average movie-goer-on-a-Saturday with nothing to do. It is a thinking man's film. There is so much subtext, the plot must be followed attentively, but the payout is enormous.

The transcendence of time in this film is a major point. Tom has loved Izzy since the beginning of his remembered time on earth, and the story she writes alludes to the devotion, determination, and love Tom has for her. The helpless feeling Tom carries throughout much of the film is one many can relate to - which makes it both sad and romantic. He cannot save Izzy, no matter how hard he tries.

"Death is a disease, and there is a cure, and I will find it."

He is grasping at straws, searching for a Nirvana that only exists within the release of death. But the uncertainty kills him.

It is a beautiful, complicated story that one must be completely focused on to really enjoy.

[–] redsmurph 11 years ago

Seeing the "non real time" sequences as things happening in the past or future can't have been the intention of the writer, and I didn't see them that way at all, as those threads directly relate to the "now" story and are clearly not intended to be real. They are rather allegorical interpretations of the real events (how Hugh's character worshiped Rachel's etc). Pretentious no doubt, but I have to say I enjoyed the movie even so :).

[–] janetteph 11 years ago

i absolutely love this film , it is one of those films you either like or you hate, i loved it from the first time i watched it and watch it many times over , have just watched it again tonight and being female i sob from the opening credits to the end credits, its beautiful and the music is beautiful and as a 60 year old it is the best film i have ever seen , so that is why the hell i like this movie x...

[–] runtheplacered 10 years ago

"Pretentious"

Why? Because it tried to have meaning? I hate that critique so much. I know you said you "enjoyed it even so", but that still makes zero sense. I find people say "Pretentious " when they can't actually define their critique in any meaningful way, which ironically, actually *is* pretentious.

[–] Stratego (31082) 6 years ago

You clearly have no idea what the word "pretentious" means. This movie definitely was a pretentious piece of crap.

[–] Benthuusi 11 years ago

People who get allegories like it, people who are allegorical illiterates hate it. It`s very simple and it is across the board. As soon as a movie, or a book for that matter, tries to add allegorical depth it gets people who take everything literally in a hissy fit.

[–] HorusEye 11 years ago

Good point. And perhaps there was made a mistake in the marketing of this film, with the summary suggesting that it should all be taken literally. The way I see it, since the first time I watched this film, only the present day story is real. The past is her vision of their shared love (which she hands over to him), and the future is his vision of their shared love, partly after having lost her. The two visions are fused (when his image of self appears in her story, and defeats the guardian), and their love is immortalized.

It is an introvert story, and I guess it will only appeal to people who perceive reality as the inner world, and that being able to share one inner world (the fusion) is the definition of soul-mating. I could go on about how extrovert love stories are all about personal vanities, but lets leave it here.

It seems like OP wants to give it a chance, by even posting here, so: I'd simply suggest giving it another go with all literal perception suspended.

[–] yadda1 11 years ago

Wow, this is one of the most intelligent imdb discussions I have ever read.

[–] natebouchard 11 years ago

I think you are right in a sense. I believe Aronofsky was dividing the the world by that "past and together"/"present and losing her"/"future and alone" logic. However, all three stories are indeed meant to be real. An understanding of Buddhism (especially Zen) or Taoism shines light on how faithful Aronofsky was to the process of enlightenment. Even a significant amount of the imagery, especially the final scene, was a result of that. If anything, with that knowledge the movie becomes extraordinarily literal. There's a bit of Mayan/Christian/Buddhist fusion going on, but the Buddhism takes the lead. There's a reason he's bald and monk-like in the lotus position and doing Tai Chi. Not to say it was heavy handed, though I imagine it must have seemed truly enigmatic without that context.

An example: One of the last shots before he contacts the dying star, the camera zooms up towards Tom's forehead and as it gets closer the star appears where the third eye would be. Essentially, a sign that he understands the cyclical nature of the world and need not be scared (thus the last line of the movie "Everything's alright". As in "We're meant to die. It's okay. It's good even.")

My only issue with the movie is that Aronofsky mostly, but doesn't completely, understand the lore he's drawing from. He essentially confuses enlightenment with death. The two are mutually exclusive. Nothing in Buddhist philosophy says you must free yourself from the fear of death, suffering and loss....then throw yourself off a cliff. Tom's character was essentially enlightened the moment he was unafraid of death, but then he chucks himself into a star. The third eye, the chakra associated with "seeing things as they are" is not the last chakra. It's 2nd to last, with the crown being the last. Once you're free from suffering, you're supposed to go out into the world and use that wisdom to uplift others. Otherwise there would have been no Buddha.

Other than that, great movie.

[–] Benthuusi 11 years ago

The past is actually the book she is writing as well.

[–] subreality-864-770504 9 years ago

Hi Benthuusi! I think a lot of people who watched this film actually like allegory, but expected something a bit deeper and more cerebral given this director. The film is so undemanding that it often comes across as patronizing, as if the audience is so cognitively impaired that it needs to be spoonfed simple, but seemingly esoteric symbolism. There are also some moments that are rather cringe-worthy, for instance, having a white imperialist floating around in padmāsana about the sacred artifacts of another culture. Hope that helps! : )

[–] Benthuusi 9 years ago

And you couldn't have demonstrated my point any better if you had tried. His skin color is irrelevant. The narrative features of the movie are incidental and irrelevant, the lab, the wife, the cancer, the conquistador. All of it. Like furniture in a house it would still be a house without it. What matters are the roof and walls. That is what makes it a house, not the furniture. And that is why people don't get this movie. They stare themselves blind on the narrative and miss the allegory, as well as the presentation of the same thing in three different layers of reality; fictional, physical and spiritual. It hammers home to viewers the fact that the narrative is meaningless and without consequence.

To put it crudely: you can not understand the Fountain without at the very least a working understanding of Plato. Clearly, most movie watchers do not have a working understanding of Plato.

[–] subreality-864-770504 9 years ago

Okay. But you are taking a leap in assuming that I haven't read Plato, or that I did not understand those texts which I have read. The same goes for Aronofsky. He assumes his audience in rather unsophisticated. But the level of intelligence demonstrated in his other films would suggest his target audience is more sophisticated than the average commercial film goer.

[–] Stratego (31082) 6 years ago

Or maybe the allegory was so obvious and superficial, that even a 3-year old would get it. Yeah, that's definitely it.

[–] demon-xp 11 years ago

Because of the concept of the tree of life being inanimate object stabbed by a dagger made by people.
I loved it though, besides the fact that it failed, or maybe succeeded, to show that the real tree of life is what we have between each other...

[–] stazza 11 years ago

I liked it because:

- it was not typical hollywood
- production, effects, sound, soundtrack, lighting, were excellent
- story was very intriguing and interesting: the love story, the past present future, the book, the true, the characters positioning in the times, really enjoye the "out there" version of the future space ship
- acting was excellent
- the way the time parts were woven together was very well done
- dialog was what it needed to be, not cheeky or patranizing (think "DUDE" in The Island)
- the life and death part of the story was interesting and more real than fake fiction
- the emotion was real feeling
- the visuals or look seemed golden, ethereal, other worldly.... attractive and beautiful
- so good, I wish I'd written the concept and story.

People like what THEY like. No need for reason or understanding.
One of the best movie experiences I've ever enjoyed.