Yes, I saw the video. And I liked it. Although Spain has not been released yet and do not know when it will, in emule you can find a screener somewhat comical, but decent.
in my life I had never followed the process of creating a movie as much as in The Fountain (except Timecrimes). After viewing Pi (1998), I was captivated by this young director, and when it opened Requiem for a Dream (2000), I was somewhat dissatisfied with both effective and less ideas (all very videoclipero).
was then discovered that Aronofsky had already script for The Fountain, as he spoke of the possibility that a version of Batman rolled called Year Zero, which I think is the version that has since proved to be Batman Begins, Nolan.
This version of the script was titled The Last Man, and had to be shot with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett (Brad was left very long beards at the time), but failed in its inception by two things: the main players and called for a millionaire film's budget was huge (more than 40millones of $). And the film
stalled another couple of years. And my joy at a well.
on the script I had read the argument then aintitcoolnews (hardly been altered) and found that Aronofsky set out to do a graphic novel as a pseudo-prequel to the film.
This time the issue came forward, but with half the budget, and two new actors Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz (Aronofsky's wife now).
The story is told in three outbreaks. In 1500, a English conquistador that part to America in search of the tree of life that the Bible speaks today, a medical researcher trying to get a cure for cancer that is killing his wife and in the year 2500 a man bound to a tree in the middle of interstellar space.
The connection between these stories is the depth of the film, and the point where tastes may diverge. The problem is mísitica behind all of it, the desire for absolute. When looking for answers, the men of each story (which are the same and are called as Thomas, Tom), seeking the Truth. I think this movie is beautiful lyrical pretentiousness shown with a very nice plastic. While that same resource, sometimes resulting in a phantasmagoria gooey and full of bright faces. It lacks simplicity. A face blurred by the excessive light crap saying the protagonist of love not a dramatic tone, but a sappy view of a scene that could be precious: the fates words of a woman who is dying in the arms of her husband, the Frankenstein myth, guilt ... But that is missing.
Medieval history is something allegorical and away from any credibility or details of reality. We have two, three people at most, overshadowed by its bright halos and grandeur of his words, but do not have a door opening, a move away or something.
On the other hand, the history of the future is strange. It becomes a metaphysical reality that makes the above realities into fantasies of a man traveling in a bubble toward the star Xibalba. A search for the ultimate answer, and the good of the film is that this answer is simple and ambiguous at the same time (not desvelaré here.)
Overall, the story boils down to the passage of life, whether at the time it is, is nothing but a search of supreme love, mortal, and at the same time, timeless.
Hugh Jackman is doing very well. I think it's an actor to take into account and noticed his theatrical training (facial appreciate their records as to mourn). By contrast, Rachel Weisz is just a pretty face (here not seen her beautiful body), and Ellen Burstyn plays a role as secondary or can be value.
Aronofsky's direction is weak, because in many instances is reduced to shooting games (Libatique) and pictorial effects (not digital because they are made with manual techniques based on liquid).
Ultimately, it is a simple story while great, is told with much fanfare, where the real protagonist is the tree of life, but love.
And the soundtrack, outstanding. Since Pi, Clint Mansell had not done anything like it. Away here in the electronic rhythm, the Kronos Quartet him overboard, grazing at certain times, post rock and other pure classical symphony orchestra.
Rating: 7
in my life I had never followed the process of creating a movie as much as in The Fountain (except Timecrimes). After viewing Pi (1998), I was captivated by this young director, and when it opened Requiem for a Dream (2000), I was somewhat dissatisfied with both effective and less ideas (all very videoclipero).
was then discovered that Aronofsky had already script for The Fountain, as he spoke of the possibility that a version of Batman rolled called Year Zero, which I think is the version that has since proved to be Batman Begins, Nolan.
This version of the script was titled The Last Man, and had to be shot with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett (Brad was left very long beards at the time), but failed in its inception by two things: the main players and called for a millionaire film's budget was huge (more than 40millones of $). And the film
stalled another couple of years. And my joy at a well.
on the script I had read the argument then aintitcoolnews (hardly been altered) and found that Aronofsky set out to do a graphic novel as a pseudo-prequel to the film.
This time the issue came forward, but with half the budget, and two new actors Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz (Aronofsky's wife now).
The story is told in three outbreaks. In 1500, a English conquistador that part to America in search of the tree of life that the Bible speaks today, a medical researcher trying to get a cure for cancer that is killing his wife and in the year 2500 a man bound to a tree in the middle of interstellar space.
The connection between these stories is the depth of the film, and the point where tastes may diverge. The problem is mísitica behind all of it, the desire for absolute. When looking for answers, the men of each story (which are the same and are called as Thomas, Tom), seeking the Truth. I think this movie is beautiful lyrical pretentiousness shown with a very nice plastic. While that same resource, sometimes resulting in a phantasmagoria gooey and full of bright faces. It lacks simplicity. A face blurred by the excessive light crap saying the protagonist of love not a dramatic tone, but a sappy view of a scene that could be precious: the fates words of a woman who is dying in the arms of her husband, the Frankenstein myth, guilt ... But that is missing.
Medieval history is something allegorical and away from any credibility or details of reality. We have two, three people at most, overshadowed by its bright halos and grandeur of his words, but do not have a door opening, a move away or something.
On the other hand, the history of the future is strange. It becomes a metaphysical reality that makes the above realities into fantasies of a man traveling in a bubble toward the star Xibalba. A search for the ultimate answer, and the good of the film is that this answer is simple and ambiguous at the same time (not desvelaré here.) Overall, the story boils down to the passage of life, whether at the time it is, is nothing but a search of supreme love, mortal, and at the same time, timeless.
Hugh Jackman is doing very well. I think it's an actor to take into account and noticed his theatrical training (facial appreciate their records as to mourn). By contrast, Rachel Weisz is just a pretty face (here not seen her beautiful body), and Ellen Burstyn plays a role as secondary or can be value. Aronofsky's direction is weak, because in many instances is reduced to shooting games (Libatique) and pictorial effects (not digital because they are made with manual techniques based on liquid).
Ultimately, it is a simple story while great, is told with much fanfare, where the real protagonist is the tree of life, but love.
And the soundtrack, outstanding. Since Pi, Clint Mansell had not done anything like it. Away here in the electronic rhythm, the Kronos Quartet him overboard, grazing at certain times, post rock and other pure classical symphony orchestra.
Rating: 7
0 comments:
Post a Comment