Re: The Fountain

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

Re: The Fountain

Posted By: Lord Crosis (209.193.22.233)
Date: Saturday, 25 November 2006, at 5:42 p.m.

In Response To: Re: The Fountain (J242)

: I loved Pi and Reqium so I figured it would be on the edge of fantastic buty
: I haven't had a chance to see it yet unfortunately. :( Glad to hear you
: liked it, knowing your tastes in film and how well they mesh with my own,
: Quick question, if you wewre to summarize the film to me, myself in terms of
: previous films we both have nejoyed or loved, how would you describe it?
: ie: A "First Contact" level of time bending almost Lynchian
: proportians that remind you of the betyter parts of Contact, Lost Highway
: and City of Lost Children (visually only) with acting on par with
: Quills... etc...
This is definitely a work in its own and hard to describe in terms of other movies. One could say that it is similar to Brahm Stoker's Dracula, as central themes are definitely immortality, love and death. It is also at least as cinematographically stunning as Dracula, and the music is similarly intense. It is even as sad or sadder than Dracula, but it's not dark or gothic like Dracula. It is almost as disjointed as something Lynchian, but not nearly was weirdly disjointed, and it all comes together in the end, something that David Lynch never really strives for. There is a quality to the music that reminds me of the Solaris soundtrack, though this is more intense. I think this is the extent of the parallels I can draw to other movies. Well... Maybe there is one other movie that I can speak in terms of...
This is definitely a Darren Aronofsky movie. That being said you won't see me draw any parallels to ?, as I couldn't even make it through that movie; It was an experiment in the making of tedious and miserable films. This movie regularly reminded me that it was by the same guy that made Requiem for a Dream. The subject matter was completely unrelated, and he didn't use the same sorts of signature shots, but the cinematography still all feels like that of Requiem. This sensation is furthered by the fantastic soundtrack by Clint Mansell (Who, of course, did the Requiem soundtrack), his best work to date. Just when you are starting to get over this effect, Ellen Burstyn shows up. She does a perfect job of portraying her role, Dr. Lillian Guzetti, but it is a small role, and not nearly as demanding, important or impressive as her role in Requiem.
Hugh Jackman really shows off his acting talent in this movie. When the movie began I instantly recognized him as Wolverine and was afraid this would plague me till the end of the film. Thankfully I forgot he was Wolverine after about 5 minutes of screen-time. This is also Rachel Weisz' best performance to date. There were several other faces in the movie that I recognized, but the only other one that stood out to me was that of Donna Murphy, and really only because I am a Star Trek geek. All-in-all the acting was top notch.
It's unbelievable to me that some of the visual effects achieved in this movie were created without the use of CGI. That being said I doubt they would have been as stunning if they had been. When Aronofsky said that he wouldn't be using CGI in this movie I was afraid that this meant the movie would be good, but somehow would not live up to its potential because he didn't use all the tools available to him. He proved that fear to be off the mark, big-time. He said that his problem with CGI is it tends to quickly date a movie, and I agree. He used 2001 as an example of a movie that didn't use CGI, and as a result, doesn't look dated. I agree with this as well. I am delighted that he managed to make this movie absolutely timeless–While making it take place in three distinct time periods.
A final note: When I first saw Requiem, at the end I said "That was a really good movie that I never want to watch again." It was gut-wrenching. This movie had almost the same effect, but instead of being gut-wrenching, it was heart-wrenching. This isn't a movie that you will watch with any regularity. Its too intense. That being said I do eagerly await watching it a few more times, just so that I can really grok it.
-=(Lord Crosis)=-

Messages In This Thread

The Fountain
Lord Crosis (209.193.22.233) -- Wednesday, 22 November 2006, at 11:20 p.m.
- Re: The Fountain
  Zach (72.224.110.4) -- Thursday, 23 November 2006, at 7:09 a.m.
- Re: The Fountain
  J242 (71.231.203.254) -- Friday, 24 November 2006, at 3:51 p.m.
  - Re: The Fountain
    Lord Crosis (209.193.22.233) -- Saturday, 25 November 2006, at 5:42 p.m.
    - Re: The Fountain
      J242 (71.231.203.254) -- Sunday, 26 November 2006, at 10:59 a.m.
      - Re: The Fountain
        Lord Crosis (209.193.22.233) -- Sunday, 26 November 2006, at 7:08 p.m.
        
        Re: The Fountain
        J242 (71.231.203.254) -- Monday, 27 November 2006, at 6:55 a.m.
        
        Directors
        Lord Crosis (209.193.45.45) -- Tuesday, 28 November 2006, at 11:06 p.m.
        
        Re: Directors
        Traveller (66.58.136.100) -- Wednesday, 29 November 2006, at 10:27 p.m.
        
        Glady you enjoyed... *NM*
        Lord Crosis (209.193.22.233) -- Thursday, 30 November 2006, at 10:27 a.m.
        
        Re: Directors
        Zach (24.249.152.11) -- Thursday, 30 November 2006, at 6:34 a.m.
        
        Re: Directors
        J242 (71.231.203.254) -- Thursday, 30 November 2006, at 7:55 a.m.
        
        Re: Directors
        Zach (24.249.152.11) -- Thursday, 30 November 2006, at 8:07 a.m.
        
        Re: Directors
        Lord Crosis (209.193.22.233) -- Thursday, 30 November 2006, at 10:38 a.m.
        
        Huh?
        J242 (71.231.203.254) -- Friday, 1 December 2006, at 9:56 p.m.
        
        Re: Directors
        Lord Crosis (209.193.22.233) -- Thursday, 30 November 2006, at 10:33 a.m.
        
        Re: Directors
        Zach (24.249.152.11) -- Thursday, 30 November 2006, at 2:06 p.m.
        
        Re: Directors
        Lord Crosis (209.193.22.233) -- Thursday, 30 November 2006, at 4:43 p.m.
        
        Re: Directors
        Zach (68.6.94.66) -- Thursday, 30 November 2006, at 7:34 p.m.
- OK, just got back from seeing it.
  Zach (68.6.94.66) -- Saturday, 25 November 2006, at 3:40 p.m.
  - Re: OK, just got back from seeing it.
    Lord Crosis (209.193.22.233) -- Saturday, 25 November 2006, at 5:44 p.m.

Post Response

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message: : This is definitely a work in its own and hard to describe in terms of other : movies. One could say that it is similar to Brahm Stoker's Dracula, as : central themes are definitely immortality, love and death. It is also at : least as cinematographically stunning as Dracula, and the music is : similarly intense. It is even as sad or sadder than Dracula, but it's not : dark or gothic like Dracula. It is almost as disjointed as something : Lynchian, but not nearly was weirdly disjointed, and it all comes together : in the end, something that David Lynch never really strives for. There is : a quality to the music that reminds me of the Solaris soundtrack, though : this is more intense. I think this is the extent of the parallels I can : draw to other movies. Well... Maybe there is one other movie that I can : speak in terms of... : This is definitely a Darren Aronofsky movie. That being said you won't see me : draw any parallels to ?, as I couldn't even make it through that movie; It : was an experiment in the making of tedious and miserable films. This movie : regularly reminded me that it was by the same guy that made Requiem for a : Dream. The subject matter was completely unrelated, and he didn't use the : same sorts of signature shots, but the cinematography still all feels like : that of Requiem. This sensation is furthered by the fantastic soundtrack : by Clint Mansell (Who, of course, did the Requiem soundtrack), his best : work to date. Just when you are starting to get over this effect, Ellen : Burstyn shows up. She does a perfect job of portraying her role, Dr. : Lillian Guzetti, but it is a small role, and not nearly as demanding, : important or impressive as her role in Requiem. : Hugh Jackman really shows off his acting talent in this movie. When the movie : began I instantly recognized him as Wolverine and was afraid this would : plague me till the end of the film. Thankfully I forgot he was Wolverine : after about 5 minutes of screen-time. This is also Rachel Weisz' best : performance to date. There were several other faces in the movie that I : recognized, but the only other one that stood out to me was that of Donna : Murphy, and really only because I am a Star Trek geek. All-in-all the : acting was top notch. : It's unbelievable to me that some of the visual effects achieved in this : movie were created without the use of CGI. That being said I doubt they : would have been as stunning if they had been. When Aronofsky said that he : wouldn't be using CGI in this movie I was afraid that this meant the movie : would be good, but somehow would not live up to its potential because he : didn't use all the tools available to him. He proved that fear to be off : the mark, big-time. He said that his problem with CGI is it tends to : quickly date a movie, and I agree. He used 2001 as an example of a movie : that didn't use CGI, and as a result, doesn't look dated. I agree with : this as well. I am delighted that he managed to make this movie absolutely : timeless–While making it take place in three distinct time periods. : A final note: When I first saw Requiem, at the end I said "That was a : really good movie that I never want to watch again." It was : gut-wrenching. This movie had almost the same effect, but instead of being : gut-wrenching, it was heart-wrenching. This isn't a movie that you will : watch with any regularity. Its too intense. That being said I do eagerly : await watching it a few more times, just so that I can really grok it. : -=(Lord Crosis)=-
If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message, please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
If you'd like to include an image (picture) with your message, please provide the URL address of the image file:
Optional Image URL:
If you'd like to have the option of deleting your post later, please provide a password (CASE SENSITIVE!):
Password:
If you'd like e-mail notification of responses, please check this box:

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

MacOpz Forum is maintained by MacOpz Administrators with WebBBS 5.12.

Web Design for the 21st Century

Site Designed/Edited/Published by Jason Buck and Stephan Jones- Apple, Mac, Macintosh, and Mac OS are trademarks of Apple, any other trademarks used are property of their respective owners - © 2001 Jason Buck and Stephan Jones. All rights reserved. Neither all or part may be reproduced or distributed without prior consent, including this copyright notice. Contact Us.