A lot less than meets the eye

Rating: 1/10 (27 September 2008)

Invading Iraq must have looked good on paper, but it didn't turn out too well in practice. The Fountain is a lot like that. A sci-fi/fantasy epic with Hugh Jackman, addressing universal truths - must be great, right? Wrong.
This film only runs about 80 minutes without the closing credits. And a good 10 minutes of that is material which gets repeated during the movie. So how come I kept checking my watch repeatedly from less than 10 minutes after the start? There are two reasons. One, this film is stupefyingly dull. Two, it is mystifyingly incomprehensible. The narrative is non-linear in places where it doesn't need to be. Things remain unexplained. The audience is cast completely adrift and isn't even offered a smidgen of assistance to navigate their way through the disparate sections. And every slowly dripping second bears evidence of just how self-awarely clever the filmmakers were being. Far more clever than me, obviously (and, oh, how I hate it when filmmakers rub your nose in how clever they are and you aren't! Have a browse through other reviews, and see how many of them are by people who are impressed by it but confess they don't understand it. And those who say they understand it, but don't! Ambiguity leading to multiple interpretations is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that it just might not be quite as clever as you thought.
Let me try to explain the story - and you must bear in mind that this is an attempted linear narrative constructed from segments which are delivered in what appears to be a fairly random order, none of which is ever fully explained. Hugh Jackman is a conquistador who is sent by Queen Isabella of Spain (Rachel Weisz) to the New World to find the Tree of Life (apparently God moved it there from the Holy Land, He alone knows why). The purpose of this is so that the Queen and the Conquistador will both live for ever and the Inquisition will be overturned (huh?). Jackman finds the Tree of Life, gobbles down loads of sap, and sprouts so many cabbages that he dies/becomes one with nature/God or something equally improbable / incomprehensible. Meanwhile in present day, research scientist Hugh Jackman is on the brink of discovering a cure for cancer, just in time to save his wife Izzi (geddit? Rachel Weisz again) who is suffering from a brain tumour. Whoops, too late. She is buried in the middle of a snow-covered wilderness, but not before telling Jackman to finish the last chapter of a book she has been beautifully hand-writing, which appears to be telling the story of the Conquistador. She even gives him an elaborate dip pen to use to write it (he, the fool, uses it to tattoo an ink wedding ring on his finger to replace the one which went missing in the lab. And/or at the Tree of Life if you believe that he is the same person as the Conquistador despite having become a cabbage patch). Meanwhile - or later - Jackman is living as a bald monk hermit in a huge gold Christmas tree ornament which contains a tree. I was a bit confused as to whether this was the Tree of Life or a tree which contained the essence of Rachel Weisz (or both). I wasn't confused as to how it and/or Jackman got into the Christmas Tree ornament, or why they were drifting about in gold ether - I simply don't know, because it was never explained. Jackman has been spending his time using his dip pen to tattoo further rings up and down his arms, shouting angrily at manifestations of Rachel Weisz, nibbling bits of tree bark, and hovering about in lotus position (get on with the last chapter Hugh, you've been there long enough for armsful of tattoos!). And then he leaves the Christmas Tree ornament and hovers off into the ether until he disappears in a blaze of light. The end.
Incidentally, the special features on the DVD feature a riveting sequence of bald monk Jackman preparing mushroom soup in extreme closeup. Can't understand why they cut that from the movie, he said sarcastically.
I must also offer a couple of words of comment about the soundtrack music. "Constant" and "Dreary."
This film was pretentious codswallop of the first order. I have no doubt that the filmmakers thought they were producing something of major importance and artistic impact. So, I suggest, did the tailor who produced the Emperor's New Clothes.
The IMDb is littered with comments by people saying "This is the worst movie I have ever seen". I am easily pleased and would not lightly make that remark and, in fairness, there are some striking visuals and the basic idea, dealt with in a less "artistic" manner may well have made a half-decent movie. So I wouldn't say this is the worst movie I have ever seen, but I would say that it is one of the least entertaining movies I have ever seen, and I regard it as a major blot on the CV of Jackman, an actor whose work I have otherwise enjoyed (Weisz? Meh).
If you like self-important drivel, then this is the film for you. If not, avoid it like the plague.