Art is back in Cinema; A very good effort but too self-aware at times

Rating: 7/10 (27 January 2007)

First, let me mention that the Golden Globes finally did something right when they nominated this movie's soundtrack by Clint Mansell for Best Original Score.
It is possibly the very best score ever made!!! If you thought the Munich score was amazing, this will make it seem like a Paris Hilton single.
Cheers for Clint Mansell.
Secondly, the cinematography of this film was absolutely gorgeous, and again the awarder societies got it right by nominating this film for best cinematography.
However, the writing was problematic and the plot, at times, substance-less. I liked the disjointed chronology and the method by which the three stories were presented (two being real, one fictional) but the dialogue felt worthless to me. I couldn't help rolling my eyes at all the scenes with the Donovan researchers spewing their technical jargon. Rachel Weisz sucks in everything but Hugh Jackman was incredible.
I appreciated Aronofsky's attempt at Art. He understands that art has been lost and needs to come back to cinema, but he makes it too blaring and self-aware and doesn't let it speak for itself. This was the primary fault of the film.
A user above made the comment that this movie falls somewhere between "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Donnie Darko" in terms of sophistication and complexity. I couldn't stop laughing after I read that comment, primarily because somehow this user managed to jumble "Donnie Darko" in the same bag as "2001: A Space Odyssey." 2001 is cinematic mastery in all aspects, Donnie Darko was a terrible experiment for teenagers. Learn to tell the difference please.