Good Try But a Little Too Full Of Itself Despite Some Wonderful Cinematography

Rating: Null/10 (10 January 2007)

Darren Aronofsky's third film, The Fountain, is an odyssey of love and the search for eternal life. Set across three different time periods, Hugh Jackman plays Tomas, Tommy, and Tom in a rather static performance. In the 1500s, he plays a Spanish conquistador Tomas, charged by his queen Isabel, to find a Mayan pyramid in the middle of the dark jungles. He enlists the help of three men--two soldiers and a priest (played well, as usual, by Mark Margolis)--to help navigate the dangerous jungles.
In the present, he plays Tommy, a cancer researcher using Rhesus Monkeys to study brain tumos. Tommy's wife, Izzi, also has a malignant brain tumor that will eventually kill her (and is also at work on a book called 'The Fountain'). His mentor, played by Ellen Burstyn in the film's best performance, disapproves with Tommy's studies of the baboon-using it as a guinea pig for a mysterious substance found in Central America. He finds the tumor in the baboon receding, getting smaller and smaller until it reaches permanent recession. Tommy rushes to his wife to tell her, but it is to late. She has a seizure and dies later in her hospital room.
In the future 2500, Tom (a completely hairless Hugh) is the Last Man. He floats through space in a bubble with a large dying tree. Over time, he has hallucinations of his wife appearing in the bubble, which apparently is a metaphor (or literally) his wife in the future with him. They are floating in the direction of Xhibalba (sp?), a large dying star nearing supernova. Xhibalba was worshiped by the ancient Mayans as their underworld--where their souls find their way after death. As Tom comes close to the star, it explodes, and he becomes "reborn", along with his wife. Together they will live forever.
This is a rather difficult movie to understand or to follow. I will admit that I still don't know exactly what has happened, nor will I be so arrogant to say that I will ever understand. This is not the best movie of the year, nor is it the worst. It lies in that vague gray area in the middle and doesn't lean towards either side. But my 'interpretation of the film leads me to assume that the future Tom is a struggle of Tommy's inner psyche trying to cope with his wife's impending demise. The Past segment would be the story that Izzi is writing (called 'The Fountain'), and that Tommy starts to read. Of course, this could be wrong, and it probably is...but I'll leave that for you to decide, reader.
The performances in the film are, for the most part, static. Hugh Jackman seems to have the same somber look on his face throughout the duration of the running time. Rachel Weisz never stops smiling pleasantly in the 'present' story. She keeps staring the camera down in the 'ancient' story. Mark Margolis and Ellen Burstyn give the two best acting jobs in the film, even for their small side-character positions.
But this is not necessarily a bad thing; Tom/my/as is a serious character and rarely has the chance to be happy, and who can blame him really? His wife is about to die, he is stuck in a bubble with a big tree (no sarcasm intended), and he is a fierce Spanish warrior about to meet his doom. As for Weisz...I need not say anything except that she plays an 'optimist'.
The cinematography of The Fountain is very poetic and beautiful. Its yellowish hue and underexposed look convey sadness to me. It's truly a beautifully shot film, and Mattew Libatique deserves some decent recognition. The music is done by Clint Mansell, who surpasses all of his previous work (save Requiem for a Dream). Very beautiful and Oscar-worthy score.
The visuals of the film are breathtaking and I still cannot believe for the life of me that extremely little computer effects were used.
The film may fail, though, on a scale that would use the expression 'It's a little too full of itself'. Its themes are portrayed in a heavy-handed fashion, and its fractured and confusing storyline may turn some people off.
I have respect for Darren Aronofsky, and I tried to like the film because he made it. But I know now, as a very amateur critic, that you shouldn't do this at all. I accept now that all directors make at least one bad movie, and, although it isn't necessarily 'bad', it will not top his previous two movies.
I apologize if I have been a little vague in my review, because I am an amateur. But this movie is a little vague to me and I can't help but give it a...
5/10