The Fountain Movie Review
The Fountain Review

"The Fountain" Overview

Rating: R
2006
Cast and Crew
Director : Darren AronofskyProducer : Arnon Milchan,Iain Smith,Eric Watson
Screenwiter : Darren Aronofsky
Starring : Hugh Jackman,Rachel Weisz,Ellen Burstyn
In the press notes for The Fountain, Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream)
says that he didn't feel that many movies had been made about the quest for
immortality. How's that? I can think of a pile off the top of my head: Tuck
Everlasting, The Spring, the entire Highlander series… heck, it was the subject
of two Star Trek movies (Insurrection and the infamous nadir of the series, The
Final Frontier). What Aronofsky should have said is that there are no good
movies about immortality, the original Highlander being the notable sole
exception. Alas, while it's got ambition to spare, I'm sad to report that The
Fountain doesn't much improve the record for "fountain of youth" flicks.
While the rock-'em-sock-'em trailer may have you thinking that The Fountain is
cut from Highlander's action-packed, centuries-spanning mold, be advised this
is far from the case. In fact, the only real action in the film occurs in the
very first scene. The rest of the movie is a meditation on loss, grief,
science, and "closure," more of a sci-fi think piece than the grand adventure
you might be hoping for.
The story takes place in three periods of time and cuts among them frequently:
A 16th century conquistador named Tomas (Hugh Jackman) searches for the
fountain of youth (here, the Biblical Tree of Life) amid the ruins of the Mayan
civilization, having been sent there by Queen Isabella (Rachel Weisz), who's
knee-deep in fending off the Spanish Inquisition. In 21st century America, we
meet scientist Tommy (Jackman), who is researching brain tumor cures, spurred
on by his dying wife Izzi (Weisz). And in the 26th century, Tom (Jackman, see a
pattern here?) is all alone, traveling through space to an unknown destination,
carried by Aronofsky's vision of the future of space travel: An oversized snow
globe.
Though I'm sure this will be the subject of endless debate and interpretation,
the three men are not really the same person over the 1,000 years, though I'm
loathe to provide complete details for fear of ruining the plot's few
worthwhile secrets. Aronofsky would like us to believe there's a huge mystery
to unravel here, but it's not really the case. He begins the film intercutting
among the three stories with abandon, and indeed we start off extremely
confused. But soon it all comes together: Izzi is writing a story about Tomas
(which may or may not be based in fact), and Tommy has previously uncovered an
"old growth" tree in South America which has impressive rejuvenating effects.
What to make of the snow globe in space, what with its cargo of one man and one
giant tree? It's connected to both stories and is made clear in due time.
With its central ambiguity resolved, we're left instead to ponder the film's
side plots and flourishes, like the meaning of a cryptic nebula light years
away, a silhouette doing tai chi, or the sudden vision of the 26th century Tom
appearing in a yoga squat superimposed over the body of conquistador Tomas.
Often featuring long stretches with minimal dialogue and images of little more
than our snow globe floating through space (with the nebula created by a
low-tech, though effective, special effect), the film recalls Solyaris more
than Star Wars.
As always, Aronofsky demonstrates impressive technical ability behind the
camera, and I can't complain one bit about either lead actor, with Jackman
particularly expressive, pouring more emotion into his role than I've ever seen
him do. It's Aronofsky's half-baked script where the film really falls apart,
first trying the patience with its inscrutability then abruptly turning you off
with its obviousness. For a film that spans 1000 years and reaches from earth
to space, it all comes off as very small and staid. It's ultimately a story
that just doesn't smack you with the grandeur it ought to, and many viewers
will feel they've been sold a bill of goods here.
While I expect the art house set (and Aronofsky's undemanding legion of
fanboys) to mistake the film's early obfuscation for depth, the movie is hardly
a masterwork, and I expect most audiences will be put off by it. As for me, I
ultimately found the film interesting without being enthralling, pretty without
being striking, and somber without being ominous. It's altogether quite
average, the type of film a promising student might make if he was given a huge
budget and quality actors. Frankly I had thought Aronofsky was capable of much
better than this.
He's tan, rested, and ready to mosh.
Reviewer: Christopher Null





