Elaborate, profound and sincere

Rating: 8/10 (17 February 2008)

The harsh critics made at this movies are, in a way, understandable. There is a French adjective that might sum up the opinion of those who did hate it: "pompier", which could be roughly translated by "pompous" : a generic, bombastic subject rendered in a academic and pretentious fashion.
Its highly sophisticated visuals and non-linear structure makes it particularly challenging, indeed. Furthermore, dealing as it does with as universal themes as Death, Eternal love or the search for immortality makes it daring, a word that could also mean "risky".
When a movie challenges what we, mere moviegoers, expect from them in general (a clear structure and the feeling that we have understood all of it when leaving the theater) the risk for its authors is never far.
I for one see it as a daring and beautiful work. And, dear me, a profound and moving narration. To make matters worse, the acting from Hugh Jackman, in his quest through Time, is really impressive.
But then again, is the movie too ambitious? Did Aronofsky foolishly tried to make a timeless movie? Is Mansell's score, dramatically departing from his previous works with Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem For A dream), equally overly vapid and grandiose? I reckon these are the sorts of critics that could easily be made but I do not share them and would find them more appropriate concerning Kubrick's 2001 (another ambitious Sci-Fi epic aiming at universal themes) which I found cold and distant.
In my humble opinion, Darren Aronofsky, as an auteur (unlike Requiem For A Dream, this is an original screenplay), completely ignored formulaic structures for a (daring/risky) story with universal themes. And giving the main role to his wife proves is eagerness to illustrate first and foremost a love story in a non-conventional way and how sincere he was in this bold enterprise. That sets him and his movie apart.