Thin and overrated (at least on IMDb)

Rating: 5/10 (14 June 2007)

Aronofsky is no Tarkovsky... though it is painfully apparent, after watching this, that he would like to be. I am amazed that the debate surrounding this film (at least on IMDb... theatres and critics didn't feel a need to show it or talk about it for very long) can be boiled down to "didn't like it" vs. "if you didn't like it, you didn't get it". Well, I got it and I didn't hate it but can't say I think it's worth paying money to see. Far from being "too complicated", the problem is that it is too over-simplified. You understand immediately that you are watching a man hell-bent on curing disease and that he has a personal stake in it. It took about a minute to figure out that he will either succeed or learn that he is not god and that things must die in the natural order. Good, that's a 20 minute art film in the short film festival. Now what is the point of the other hour+? Feel free to dispute these points if you question what I am saying:
There is no sub-plot. Period, only 3 variations of the same thing that are not cryptic or obscured in any way. The simple primary theme is the only one you see. No greater allegory, no opposing opinion. Imagine how Cronenberg, Lynch or Kubrick would have handled this film's concept and you'll see what I mean. Watch Pan's Labarynth for an example of how to use dark realism and historical accuracy pitted against fantasy for an allegory with more than one layer.
There are no secondary character relationships. A supervising doctor= never explored, a Fransiscan monk = never explored, etc.. You never really know the story or motivations of anyone else but Tom and he's just not a well-enough-drawn character to sustain 90 minutes on his own (even if you change his name a couple of times).
There is no real conflict presented. This is the most serious flaw due to the fact that there is so much room to explore deeper themes relevant to today's society. How can your main character be an obsessed scientist experimenting on monkeys to find a cure for "death" without dealing with (at the very LEAST), issues of animal testing and the Republican party's recent hard line stance on right to die and stem cell issues. This film could have had an emotional impact in a relevant, current way and chose not to. The problem is it didn't do much in the way of a human love story to compensate either.
I know the back story of the filming so I realize that the budget was cut, casting was changed and the original location was scrapped all together. However, this was a story that didn't require a huge budget to tell. It strives for the atmosphere (and by that I mean direct plagiarism) of Tarkovsky, the skewed audio and sound style of Cronenberg and the "universal theme through time" that Lynch does better than anyone - but to compare Aronofsky's writing or direction to any of those three (or Kubrick who I mentioned earlier) is just embarrassing. It needed a better script and a deeper vision. This film wasn't complicated, it was far, far too simple to resonate.