The Fountain on blu: in retrospect

[itsmejennings]

Aronofsky's The Fountain is my favorite movie, but I havent upgraded to blu yet. It was one of the first titles on blu, so Im wondering for those who own it, does the PQ still hold up compared to newer releases? Would you say its worth the upgrade from SD?

[benricci]

All the reviews seem to give it 4 stars for picture quality. BTW, this was not one of the first titles released on blu-ray.

[Wdm81]

Apparently it had decent PQ

Personally though this has to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen, it was far too pretentious for its own good, it didn't know what it wanted to be so it tried to be smart but it just came across as a confusing mess

There's a reason it was booed when it was first shown at the film festivals

[itsmejennings]

Originally Posted by benricci

All the reviews seem to give it 4 stars for picture quality. BTW, this was not one of the first titles released on blu-ray.

I know all the reviews give it 4 stars but its been over 2 years since they were written and opionions change about transfers with age, hence my question.

Also, the disc was released within the formats first year. Thats over 2 years ago if your counting. For me, thats old and its one of the first titles.

[jacobb1313]

Personal quibbles aside, I think the film was a major upgrade from the SDVD (I had both). The PQ on the Blu is well worth getting.

[Beta Man]

It got good reviews for its technical merits, and it's your favorite film...... and you don't know whether or not you should buy it?

[benricci]

Originally Posted by itsmejennings

I know all the reviews give it 4 stars but its been over 2 years since they were written and opionions change about transfers with age, hence my question.

Also, the disc was released within the formats first year. Thats over 2 years ago if your counting. For me, thats old and its one of the first titles.

Jeez, 2 years ago is really not that long. Come on, I mean it's not as if these reviews were written a decade ago.

And since everything written about the transfer is universally positive, I think you're safe in assuming it still holds up.

Blu-ray was already on the market for a year when this came out so I don't really consider it one of the first releases.

[itsmejennings]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

It got good reviews for its technical merits, and it's your favorite film...... and you don't know whether or not you should buy it?

I already own it on DVD, but its one of those titles that Im letting it sit for a while because Ive seen it so many times, I need to wait a while to watch it again with a fresh perspective. Figured I would get it in blu for the next time. Plus for a film of its age, it hasnt dipped below $20 which another reason I have held off for so long.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Wdm81

Apparently it had decent PQ

Personally though this has to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen, it was far too pretentious for its own good, it didn't know what it wanted to be so it tried to be smart but it just came across as a confusing mess

There's a reason it was booed when it was first shown at the film festivals

Actually......it is a very simple story. Roger Ebert wrote a second review after a fan mailed him an explanation based on his interpretation. Ebert posted the fan letter because he liked what it offered so much. There are a few tiny, easy to miss, little things, that once tied together make the story 100% coherent...AND logical and more importantly, poignant. If one misses these obscure, seemingly vague points, it appears to be a nonlinear mess for sure.

My first viewing was a moving experience in the theater. Watching it on Blu, after reading the Fan letter allowed me to be more enveloped by the emotion of it all. I was quite surprised how clearly available these points were, and that I missed them the first time. It was probably due to the fact that I was in awe of the visual and auditory spectacle, and those bits slipped past me.

There were once rumors of a re release directors cut Blu. I believe they are dead now.

To the OP, The PQ is satisfactory. Worth the upgrade to me.

[Teabaggins]

Originally Posted by Wdm81

There's a reason it was booed when it was first shown at the film festivals

because most people are simple minded idiots?

[vega2K]

I own the Fountain on blu and it has great PQ on par with recent releases IMO. It sucks though that it is DD 5.1 only. Also sucks that Aronofsky didn't have a chance to include a commentary track and resorted to making one anyway and placing it on the internet (I never heard it though, don't know how to use torrent files???)

I really got into the movie - It was one of those movies where it is open to one's interpretation and stays with you after it's over. Highly recommend it to be added to one's blu-ray collection.

[AnimeOnBlu]

The US release is ok. Decent PQ/AQ, but not quite as good as the UK Fox Version. The US version is an upgrade, but not a decent one as the US disc was handled very poorly by Warner.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Teabaggins

because most people are simple minded idiots?

I tried to word my post a little differently.

[SquidPuppet]

Roger ebert wrote...

I could go on like this, but having searched the 18,326 messages in my g-mail account, I find that one reader, Matt Withers of Brunswick, MD has it all figured out in elegant detail. His explanation will be found elsewhere on this site.

Matt Withers explanation of the Fountain...

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...NTARY/70914001

[vega2K]

Originally Posted by Teabaggins

because most people are simple minded idiots?

Although I wouldn't go that far, I agree that for those people who prefer being spoon fed everything in a movie, this movie would suck. There were so many things that were unspoken, yet told a whole story - The tree of life link in the Past/Present/Future timelines, the Maya belief ties to the timelines, reincarnation of his wife, his desparate attempt at saving his wife in the present and future/timelines, his tatoos, etc. Awesome.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by vega2K

Although I wouldn't go that far, I agree that for those people who prefer being spoon fed everything in a movie, this movie would suck. There were so many things that were unspoken, yet told a whole story - The tree of life link in the Past/Present/Future timelines, the Maya belief ties to the timelines, reincarnation of his wife, his desparate attempt at saving his wife in the present and future/timelines, his tatoos, etc. Awesome.

I encourage you to read the letter I posted in the above link. I think you will find his take on the movie fascinating, in a very simple way. Its NOT what we thought at all. I love the film from any angle, but his perspective is hard to dispute, and just as beautifull as any other interpretation. A good read.

[Chrysagon]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Actually......it is a very simple story. Roger Ebert wrote a second review after a fan mailed him an explanation based on his interpretation. Ebert posted the fan letter because he liked what it offered so much.

Excellent analysis of the movie. I interpreted the story in a similar fashion, and recommend it highly. BTW --PQ is excellent.

[vega2K]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I encourage you to read the letter I posted in the above link. I think you will find his take on the movie fascinating, in a very simple way. Its NOT what we thought at all. I love the film from any angle, but his perspective is hard to dispute, and just as beautifull as any other interpretation. A good read.

Yes it was a good read. Thanks. Though, I still prefer the idea that the future Tom is real and that he managed to "cure" death and continues to live only for one purpose - to save his wife (now part of the tree). In my version, at the end he and his wife become reborn as one through the nebula explosion.

Great stuff!

[itsmejennings]

Originally Posted by vega2K

Yes it was a good read. Thanks. Though, I still prefer the idea that the future Tom is real and that he managed to "cure" death and continues to live only for one purpose - to save his wife (now part of the tree). In my version, at the end he and his wife become reborn as one though the nebula explosion.

Great stuff!

Thats my interpretation too. While I like the interpretation in the article, to me it doesnt make sense when you think about when Izzy apears to him and tells him to 'finish it' and he says he cant. Why would the future Tom write this part into his story? There would be no reference for it.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by vega2K

Yes it was a good read. Thanks. Though, I still prefer the idea that the future Tom is real and that he managed to "cure" death and continues to live only for one purpose - to save his wife (now part of the tree). In my version, at the end he and his wife become reborn as one though the nebula explosion.

Great stuff!

Any way you slice it, it guts me and brings me joy, all at the same time. Walking to my car late at night, after seeing it at the theater, I completely fell apart. And I wasnt sure why at the moment. It took me a couple days to proccess it.