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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[jhiggy23]

SquidPuppet;2155720 "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.

For the record, it is far from a simplistic story and I have read Ebert's review based on the fan's explanation. Quite simply, the fan's explanation is incorrect. I, myself, have written a 20+ page explanation of the film and studied it in depth for several months, analyzing every scene and every line of dialogue. It is easy to see why the film comes across as pretentious and why people dislike it: the vast majority of people completely misunderstand the film and its message. I think that this is a film that is virtually impossible to like (technical merits aside) without understanding it. I know not everyone cares about truly understanding a film, and that others simply don't want to think that much when watching one, but it is irritating when people make judgments on film based upon erroneous information. This is in no way directed at you, however. I am speaking generally. And yes, I will admit that this is my favorite film (but only after truly understanding it). However, this thread is not about the meaning of the film, but about the blu-ray's merits.

I thank you for your post, highlighting that there are many small aspects which play a role in the overall interpretation and meaning of the film. And I completely agree with you that missing all these things make the film virtually incoherent.

[Teabaggins]

post a brief synopsis of your 20 pager

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

For the record, it is far from a simplistic story and I have read Ebert's review based on the fan's explanation. Quite simply, the fan's explanation is incorrect. I, myself, have written a 20+ page explanation of the film and studied it in depth for several months, analyzing every scene and every line of dialogue. It is easy to see why the film comes across as pretentious and why people dislike it: the vast majority of people completely misunderstand the film and its message. I think that this is a film that is virtually impossible to like (technical merits aside) without understanding it. I know not everyone cares about truly understanding a film, and that others simply don't want to think that much when watching one, but it is irritating when people make judgments on film based upon erroneous information. This is in no way directed at you, however. I am speaking generally. And yes, I will admit that this is my favorite film (but only after truly understanding it). However, this thread is not about the meaning of the film, but about the blu-ray's merits.

I thank you for your post, highlighting that there are many small aspects which play a role in the overall interpretation and meaning of the film. And I completely agree with you that missing all these things make the film virtually incoherent.

Please email your explanation to me. Thank you.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

For the record, it is far from a simplistic story and I have read Ebert's review based on the fan's explanation. Quite simply, the fan's explanation is incorrect. I, myself, have written a 20+ page explanation of the film and studied it in depth for several months, analyzing every scene and every line of dialogue. It is easy to see why the film comes across as pretentious and why people dislike it: the vast majority of people completely misunderstand the film and its message. I think that this is a film that is virtually impossible to like (technical merits aside) without understanding it. I know not everyone cares about truly understanding a film, and that others simply don't want to think that much when watching one, but it is irritating when people make judgments on film based upon erroneous information. This is in no way directed at you, however. I am speaking generally. And yes, I will admit that this is my favorite film (but only after truly understanding it). However, this thread is not about the meaning of the film, but about the blu-ray's merits.

I thank you for your post, highlighting that there are many small aspects which play a role in the overall interpretation and meaning of the film. And I completely agree with you that missing all these things make the film virtually incoherent.

Head is spinning now..... Do I have this right.. You claim others have it wrong. You also claim it is virtually impossible to like it without understanding it. Yet the people you claim that have it wrong seem to like it.

Or is that all part of the time travel, they like it in the future...based on the passed reading of your 20+ page report?

[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?

[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.

[Wdm81]

Originally Posted by Teabaggins

because most people are simple minded idiots?

Of course they are…but not in this case

Film is entirely subjective and I’m aware of that. After all, one man's Godfather 2 is another man's Transformers 2. But in the Case of The Fountain the structure of the film itself was so entirely confusing that it took you out of the movie, the only thing it made you think was "what the hell is going on" and in my opinion that is just bad storytelling, To me (and several others) it just felt like it was trying to hard to be something different from the norm, and while sometimes that works, in this case it just didn't and it came off as some pretentious film that only seemed to want make you think you had seen something marvelous when you really hadn’t.

I haven't read that Roger Ebert write up, but I will later and maybe that will change my mind, but for now it's my impression that people claim to like this movie because they are afraid that admitting to not getting a "smart" movie makes them appear dumb.

But, like I said Film is highly subjective...the universe would collapse if everyone agreed, lol

[Teabaggins]

Originally Posted by Wdm81

But in the Case of The Fountain the structure of the film itself was so entirely confusing that it took you out of the movie, the only thing it made you think was "what the hell is going on" and in my opinion that is just bad storytelling, To me (and several others) it just felt like it was trying to hard to be something different from the norm, and while sometimes that works, in this case it just didn't and it came off as some pretentious film that only seemed to want make you think you had seen something marvelous when you really hadn’t.

what was so confusing?

it was simple for me; the doc and his wife are real, in our time.

the conquistador is the character she was wriritng about, and the space traveler was most likely the end of the book that present day Tom finishes for his wife after her death.

easy enough?

[vega2K]

Originally Posted by Wdm81

Of course they are…but not in this case

Film is entirely subjective and I’m aware of that. After all, one man's Godfather 2 is another man's Transformers 2. But in the Case of The Fountain the structure of the film itself was so entirely confusing that it took you out of the movie, the only thing it made you think was "what the hell is going on" and in my opinion that is just bad storytelling, To me (and several others) it just felt like it was trying to hard to be something different from the norm, and while sometimes that works, in this case it just didn't and it came off as some pretentious film that only seemed to want make you think you had seen something marvelous when you really hadn’t.

I haven't read that Roger Ebert write up, but I will later and maybe that will change my mind, but for now it's my impression that people claim to like this movie because they are afraid that admitting to not getting a "smart" movie makes them appear dumb.

But, like I said Film is highly subjective...the universe would collapse if everyone agreed, lol

I for one understand your point. I have seen movies that were so confusing/convoluted/unbelieveable I just gave-up, but in my case they were mostly Horror/Fantasy/Action in nature (and seemed to be more geared towards teens). Also, I hate movies that spoon feed you - I hate it when in the movie, the music or the camera gives you a queue for when you are supposed to be scared or you are supposed to remember something for later.

There is a different type of WTF movie though that I like, that doesn't require one to be smart but does require one to think more for one's self. Such as Memento, 12 Monkeys, Vanilla Sky, Prestige, Knowing, Dark City, etc. I categorize the Fountain into this type of movie.

Edit: Blindness and Children of Men also fall into this category IMO.

[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.