criterionforum.org

Posted: **Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:46 pm**

The release date has been moved to a more Oscar-targeted Nov. 22nd and the release has been inflated from 1200 screens to 2500.

Posted: **Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:14 pm**

solaris72 wrote:The release date has been moved to a more Oscar-targeted Nov. 22nd and the release has been inflated from 1200 screens to 2500.

Just look what internet buzz can buy you these days.

Posted: **Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:58 pm**

This looks incredible in every meaning of the word. My prediction is that it'll be a huge hit with the critics, but it'll do lukewarm in theaters. There are not many films I can think of that are sci-fi/drama that were successful in the B.O. except Close Encounters, E.T., and maybe Starman? (please correct if I'm wrong). That said, I really hope to catch this in the theater. It seems to demand the kind of attention one gets seeing it on the big screen, rather than watching it at home.

One more thing, wtf is with the R rating?

Posted: **Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:45 am**

flyonthewall2983 wrote:There are not many films I can think of that are sci-fi/drama that were successful in the B.O. except Close Encounters, E.T., and maybe Starman? (please correct if I'm wrong).

2001: A Space Odyssey is the one that comes to mind for me (it was one of the top grossing MGM films of all time)... but The Fountain is not just sci-fi but also present day medical drama and conquistador epic

Posted: **Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:08 pm**

Hmm, I thought 2001's initial business was very slow.

Posted: **Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:00 pm**

Maybe, but it ended up grossing over $50 million domestically and $190 million worldwide.

As for sci-fi films that have been a hit: The Matrix trilogy comes to mind immediately. Terminator films as well. The Back To The Future trilogy. Contact did very well. But like any genre film, I could probably easily list a bunch of films that bombed as well.

A 2500 screen opening is a big gamble but clearly the studio is going to be ramping up the promotion and feels the film can strike a chord with a large audience.

Posted: **Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:05 pm**

Antoine Doinel wrote:Maybe, but it ended up grossing over $50 million domestically and $190 million worldwide.

As for sci-fi films that have been a hit: The Matrix trilogy comes to mind immediately. Terminator films as well. The Back To The Future trilogy. Contact did very well. But like any genre film, I could probably easily list a bunch of films that bombed as well.

A 2500 screen opening is a big gamble but clearly the studio is going to be ramping up the promotion and feels the film can strike a chord with a large audience.

Well, of course those films were hits. The sci-fi/action genre will pretty much be a safe bet for hit movies (of course there are exceptions though). What I meant though were the sci-fi films that with character as much as hardware.

Not to say that those films mentioned above didn't. I'm just saying overall that I don't think The Fountain will do great business, but I'll gladly eat my words if I'm wrong.[/code]

Posted: **Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:08 pm**

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Antoine Doinel wrote:Maybe, but it ended up grossing over $50 million domestically and $190 million worldwide.

As for sci-fi films that have been a hit: The Matrix trilogy comes to mind immediately. Terminator films as well. The Back To The Future trilogy. Contact did very well. But like any genre film, I could probably easily list a bunch of films that bombed as well.

A 2500 screen opening is a big gamble but clearly the studio is going to be ramping up the promotion and feels the film can strike a chord with a large audience.
Well, of course those films were hits. The sci-fi/action genre will pretty much be a safe bet for hit movies (of course there are exceptions though). What I meant though were the sci-fi films that deal more with character than hardware.

12 Monkeys was quite successful if memory serves and that tried to be a more serious SF film.

Posted: **Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:10 pm**

ok, ok, my point sucks

Posted: **Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:13 pm**

Good, it's in competition.

Posted: **Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:18 pm**

The only thing that keeps baffling me is the running time of this beast. Only 96 minutes long? How on earth can you go from year 1500 to 2500 in little over and hour and a half? Jokes aside, I do hope the final product is able to handle such megalomaniac aspirations.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:05 am**

According to VARIETY, this one premiered to a symphony of boos.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:19 am**

rs98762001 wrote:According to VARIETY, this one premiered to a symphony of boos.

That can only mean that it's absolutely fantastic.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:01 am**

To save everyone the trouble, here is the Variety review.

Some highlights:

Leslie Felperin wrote:Backburnered four years ago after original star Brad Pitt pulled out, then long in the making, "The Fountain," third feature by one-time wunderkind Darren Aronofsky ("Pi," "Requiem for a Dream"), made more of a splatter than a splash on Venice's Lido with its world premiere. Greeted by booing at its first press unspooling, pic's hippy trippy space odyssey-meets-contempo-weepy-meets-conquistador caper starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz suffers from a turgid script and bears all the signs of edit-suite triage to produce a still-incoherent 95 minutes. A gush of negative word of mouth will keep B.O. figures at a trickle.

Visual effects, credited to a slew of different companies, are indeed striking with their nearly 3-D layers of golden haze. However, segment ultimately looks like a remake of the wormhole section of "2001: A Space Odyssey," as produced by makers of instructional videos for beginning yoga students.

No doubt the filmmakers' intention was to celebrate a love that transcends centuries, hence repeated use of lines, scenes and motifs. In the end, however, the effect is just monotonous, especially given overuse of Clint Mansell's mournful orchestral score, slathered over scenes as if in hopes it will paper over the plot's cracks.

Nevertheless, with savvy marketing "The Fountain" might yet find a niche audience, especially with softer-hearted femme viewers who will groove to the pick's rich costumes and honeyed tones.

A dear old friend of mine is in the film, so I'll try to touch base with him and maybe get an inside scoop.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:25 am**

Fuck Variety. This is Aronofsky people... and will be genius. Can't wait!

By the way, a review has just been posted over at AICN. You can check it out here if you like. I don't recommend reading it if you don't want spoilers, but a couple of choice quotes are:

"Not many films can blow your mind and break your heart at the same time, but this one will."

"It's a lesson for me. A thrilling one. Because whatever I thought THE FOUNTAIN would be, it wasn't. Whatever I'd read and seen, the movie that Aronofsky made is so much more."

"The movie just sort of rattles around inside me, no matter what else I watch. I see an average of three movies a day right now, and this one ends up being the one I think about every night. And part of what I find so seductive about it is just how simple it is, but how complex it appears."

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:26 am**

I's not like AICN has better credibility than Variety.

EDIT: and Moriarty is an all-time douche.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:42 pm**

Dear lord. Now we're using AICN to refute Variety. The day I take either Variety or AICN seriously and start valuing their opinions on films I want someone to shoot me right through the grey matter.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:30 pm**

The Independent sounds off on the negative reaction to the film and briefly mentions a sex scene that was cut out.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:30 pm**

Andre Jurieu wrote:Now we're using AICN to refute Variety.

Obviously to some, they are irrefutable sources of the truth.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:59 pm**

Anyone who names his son "Toshiro Lucas McWeeny" should not be trusted.

Toshiro Mifune turns in his grave. George Lucas looks to the ground...

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:05 pm**

One time this guy told me that Aronofsky could be the next Kubrick.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:07 pm**

Oh Jesus Christ someone is posting crap from AICN? I didn't read it but I bet they thought Fountain was "awesome!"

Variety is probably the best single source for reviews.

The Hollywood Reporter is dismissive.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:37 pm**

soma wrote:Fuck Variety. This is Aronofsky people... and will be genius. Can't wait!

Genius? Based on what? The mediocre PI and heavy-handed, overwrought REQUIEM?

THE FOUNTAIN sounded like a disaster from the outset and the early reaction seems to bear this out. Thankfully this guy didn't get to bludgeon WATCHMEN to death.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:30 pm**

Handing "boy wonders" a bunch of "stars" and $$$ isn't necessarily a good thing. Big-themed movies are VERY hard to pull off, yet everybody wants to do them. Just because you are a good cameraman doesn't suddenly make you a philosopher. I will go see this but it sounds dire.

P.S. I give the Darren/Rachel "relationship" about 6 more months, at best.

Posted: **Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:10 am**

Barmy wrote:P.S. I give the Darren/Rachel "relationship" about 6 more months, at best.

Yeah, wrecking your girlfriend's career isn't exactly the most endearing thing a guy can do.

criterionforum.org

The Fountain (Darren Aronofsky, 2006)