Release date is scheduled for October 13, 2006. One of two movies im looking forward to and I have to wait 3 more months. COME ON!

7/2/2006 2:21:18 PM

at least it has a date finally. i've been looking forward to this for a while too.

7/2/2006 2:26:00 PM

The graphic novel was released a few months ago and it's really really good. I'm really looking forward to seeing this movie.

7/2/2006 2:32:26 PM

he's one of the few directors still worth waiting for

7/2/2006 2:38:19 PM

at least of the "well-known's" i would include aronofsky, anderson, jonze, and gondry as movies i am always in anticipation. (and anything written by kaufman)

7/2/2006 2:41:40 PM

I pumped about this movie

7/2/2006 6:37:24 PM

The trailer is out. Jesus.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thefountain/

7/21/2006 5:45:29 PM

i can't tell if it's gonna be really cool or gay ( atleast i can stare at hugh during the film )

i saw aronowsky's movie post pi & requiem, called "below" & it kinda sucked. maybe it's just me though, b/c i'm prone to liking really good drug movies vs. mediocre sci-fi / fantasy ones.........

7/21/2006 7:07:00 PM

Eh, he only wrote Below...co-wrote it, even, with the writer of such gems as Waterworld, The Chronicles of Riddick, and Critters 2: The Main Course.

7/21/2006 8:03:34 PM

I'm upset its not about explicit drug use or math, but i'll still watch

7/21/2006 8:11:43 PM

looks really cool, i love aronofsky but i probably wont see this, its way to philosophical and looks way too boring

7/21/2006 8:16:07 PM

man i'm excited

7/23/2006 1:50:59 PM

what is this about, and who is this?

7/23/2006 1:53:03 PM

Never heard of it, so the movies a horror flick? I presume from the one name title.

7/23/2006 2:06:26 PM

What?

7/23/2006 2:17:30 PM

Looks cool.

Also, I would like this hair thing like this:

7/23/2006 7:02:52 PM

I pumped about this movie

7/23/2006 7:28:24 PM

And there's no CGI, which is super cool.

Beware of spoilers and such:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=19803

7/26/2006 1:38:31 AM

Looks like it'll be better than his other stuff. I'll go see it.

7/26/2006 11:14:42 AM

excited.

7/26/2006 11:21:38 AM

bttt

11/14/2006 10:43:40 PM

wish the reviews were better for this movie, doesn't matter though, I'll still see it and look forward to it

11/14/2006 10:46:43 PM

The visuals were absolutely stunning - he didn't use any CGI at all. A lot of the space images were time-lapse yeast growth, exothermic chemical reactions and things of that sort.

While there were parts of the movie I applauded - I found he used a bit too much repetition. Almost as if he felt like he had to force feed the message to beat the themes into the psuedo-intellectuals who won't get it.

Overall I give it a 7.5/10 or so


Oh - the use of light and shadow was quite fascinating. The lights in Q. Isabella's chamber were really cool.

[Edited on November 15, 2006 at 9:40 PM. Reason : csfwsvda]

11/15/2006 9:37:48 PM

This movie will suck.

When I saw the previews I thought it was one for pathfinder, but the guy was just stalking a girl for a few thousand years. And, that enraged me, pathfinder shouldn't look at all like this.

11/15/2006 9:41:15 PM

Quote :

"While there were parts of the movie I applauded - I found he used a bit too much repetition. Almost as if he felt like he had to force feed the message to beat the themes into the psuedo-intellectuals who won't get it."

sadly it's catering to the masses that makes money and not <whatever you said>

11/16/2006 2:34:28 AM

uh huh

11/17/2006 11:49:56 PM

I saw this film the other night and I was completely awe-struck. I love his style of film making and this one is visually stunning and extremely heartfelt.

11/18/2006 10:45:50 AM

how similiar is the style to requiem ? it seems rather from the trailer. it's so vague I dont know what to expect

11/18/2006 11:11:44 AM

Saw the movie last night. It's quite a heavy film; I need to see it again.

11/22/2006 12:49:10 PM

Im gonna see this tonight if i can find someone to go with. If not, then ill be seeing For Your Consideration or that Dixie Chicks Docu.

11/22/2006 2:03:29 PM

I just returned home from seeing this film. It was breathtaking in many different aspects. The storyline was amazing, so was the audio and visual. Agreed it is heavy, cant wait to see it again.

11/24/2006 1:17:33 AM

I didn't quite like the movie that much

Mainly because I think I could put together a playlist to play during the entire movie without having to hear any of its dialogue.

The visuals were really good though and I'd actually like to see CGI toned down in other movies in favor of, oh I don't know, talent?

11/24/2006 2:06:15 AM

I was worried after seeing the bad reviews.

I liked it- I'd say it was more Buddhist than anything else. I wonder if all three of the storylines even happened at all- I'm assuming only one of them did, although I like the idea of the futuristic one being real. Anyway, it looks beautiful, even if some would claim it has no other redeeming value.

Oh, and Darren Aronofsky has a Clint Mansell fetish, but that's totally awesome. The music was beautiful.

[Edited on November 24, 2006 at 8:33 PM. Reason : .]

11/24/2006 8:32:25 PM

I still haven't seen this, how the fuck did that happen?

11/24/2006 8:41:13 PM

Same here. Im going to try REAL HARD and see it Satuday night if i get back from Clemson in time. If not then ill check it out Monday night.

11/24/2006 8:51:04 PM

WTF is all I have to say.

11/24/2006 11:14:24 PM

Quote :

"WTF is all I have to say."

I mean, I expected that from a Darren Aronofsky film....but jesis gay that was odd

11/26/2006 6:09:48 PM

Quote :

"WTF is all I have to say."

haha everyone in the theater i was at said the same thing after the movie....this is seriously the worst movie i have seen in awhile

11/26/2006 8:14:55 PM

never said it was bad...

WTF is all i had to say..

after a day of thinking about it I decided I like the movie

11/26/2006 8:16:30 PM

I'm so looking forward to this. One review I read said it was definitely the worst movie of the year. Another review said it was one of the best movies of all time.

[Edited on November 26, 2006 at 8:34 PM. Reason : was ]

11/26/2006 8:33:52 PM

My sister hated it and I loved it... It seems to be a very polarizing film with regards to the critics, too (Metacritic has it at exactly 50 right now, for example).

11/26/2006 8:42:27 PM

No it actually was quite bad.

The visuals being as good as they are saved it from total failure.

11/26/2006 9:06:50 PM

i loved it. i didn't really understand the plot but i had a huge emotional response to it. that's rare for me, so i'll go ahead and give it a thumbs up.

11/26/2006 9:58:09 PM

^^ That's actually still only your opinion.

And:

Quote :

"The visuals were really good though and I'd actually like to see CGI toned down in other movies in favor of, oh I don't know, talent?"

There's no CGI, if you had read the article I posted earlier. Here's another one.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/outsider.html

11/26/2006 11:16:44 PM

Saw this too -- seemed like the essences of these two people were trapped in a pattern of eternal recurrence, with the conquistador as the first father. Not really sure what to make of it though -- I enjoyed it, but I'm not sure whether the fact I didn't quite get it was due to ambiguity in my understanding or the plot itself.

11/27/2006 1:08:00 AM

****SPOILER*****SPOILER ALERT******SPOILER










if you didn't understand the movie, this might help you:
Darren Aronofsky has said in interviews that the whole Conquistador story line never really took place. So you can assume it was simply Isabel's writing, which is basically the same story of what was currently taking place, but in a different time. (Tom trying to find a cure or way to save Isabel) The third and most confusing story, I just looked at that as his emotional battle, not so much literally what you see. It kept the same concept (life/death/love/devotion, etc) but if you were to look at it literally it takes place about 500 years in the future and he is trying to take the tree that grew out of Izzi's body to that "dead star" to finally rest and be "reborn"

That's what I took out of it.

11/27/2006 1:20:45 AM

It didn't really make sense to me that the present was the only "real" time, though. Why would he be so bent on "stopping" death if he didn't have assurance that it could be stopped? It didn't seem that he was deluding himself -- it seemed as if he truly knew he could do it.

11/27/2006 1:23:32 AM

still spoilers*

^ naw... didn't really see it like that at all.

his wife was dying. he was working on the cure for years. they found that tree in south america and tried it out... he was getting close, and he knew it. He wasn't going to stop until he found it for his wife. The idea that death is a disease that he could cure was something he must have had for a while.

His wife wrote a book which mirrored their life. He finished it the way he imagined it.

According to the end of the "current timeline story" he did find the cure for death.. so you could look at it as him taking the cure and living forever to make sure that his wife in the form of the tree could meet her destiny with that dead star as an "after the end of the world" type of explorer

11/27/2006 1:30:09 AM

Ah I see -- I was going along for the ride and trying to interpret every scene as an actual occurance, to see if it made any sense. I'd have to see it again, honestly -- but at the time I thought that perhaps each scene would always occur next in the sequence (and then wrap around) to demonstrate some concept of eternal recurrence. I might actually enjoy that more. haha

11/27/2006 1:38:07 AM

I mean, I guess one can interpret the movie any way you want...
but I shared my thoughts on the movie with plenty of people and they seem to think it's on point. Just today, there was a group of about 5 people that left the movie, came up to me in the lobby, and was like, that was the worst movie ever, I don't know what I watched...

I explained my views on it and the changed their opinions and said they might have to watch it again now.

11/27/2006 1:46:44 AM