Datasets:

DDDDZQ

/

imdb_reviews

like 0

A Fountain of Meaning

tt0414993

I must say, there was more than enough buildup of anticipation to seeing this film long before it came out. Aside from the mesmerizing trailer that seemed to scream masterpiece, the conception of a modern re-telling of the story of the fountain of youth all but floored me. Walking into the movie theater tonight, I already knew that, whatever the outcome of the film, I knew I would enjoy its movie-going experience for the special effects. However, I never thought this film would be among my top five favorite films ever."You're either going to love it or hate it." the concession stand employee said to me before the show, which was the gist of how I characterized most intelligent or groundbreaking films.At a span of 96 minutes that seemed like hours on end that I never wanted to stop, THE FOUNTAIN is a masterpiece of modern cinema by way of Darren Aronofski. It tells the stories of three seemingly different sequences simultaneously that, within the film's magnificent climax, become one with each other. Its lessons or messages are many and complex, requiring a heavy amount of pondering and thought for the intelligent movie patron, comparable to other legendary films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the recent CRASH. Which, perhaps is what the concessions worker meant. Those who find this film shoddy, repetitive and inconsistent simply lack the patience and capacity to think after a movie concludes. The average movie-goer demands explanations, answers and solutions to absolutely every concept within a movie, the audience member leaves confused, baffled and angry, blaming the movie for their feelings instead of humbling themselves to recognize their own lack of mind broadness and increased ignorance.Films like these demand the viewer to think, as if the film itself is an equation offered to the audience to solve. The audience then conjures what THEY believe to be the rightful meaning of a movie, whether it is actually the one or not, or if there is a solitary one at all. Like good music, the listener is forced to conceive their own elaboration of a song or movie, which, when considered, few may want to.This film is targeted at a specific genre of people: intelligent people. Films like these win awards while 2/3 of America disagree or rant that they've never even heard of the movie before. Will it receive #1 at the box office? Probably Not. Will it win an academy award? Perhaps. Will it be, in the short run merely forgotten only to be remembered by future generations? Perhaps.Aranofsky examines a fact of life that can only be deemed ultimate and utmost, and that is the concept of life, death and the hypothetical hypothesis of living forever. For when we lose someone, we mourn for their absence and wish for the reversal of their death above all things. This film asks the question, what if you could live on? Perhaps its primary aim is to not only remind us that we would not want to live forever, but that, ultimately, we have to die, and that the death of anything means the birth and living of another, from the death of a person, to the sprouting of flowers.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-93

ur7752788

title: A Fountain of Meaning review: I must say, there was more than enough buildup of anticipation to seeing this film long before it came out. Aside from the mesmerizing trailer that seemed to scream masterpiece, the conception of a modern re-telling of the story of the fountain of youth all but floored me. Walking into the movie theater tonight, I already knew that, whatever the outcome of the film, I knew I would enjoy its movie-going experience for the special effects. However, I never thought this film would be among my top five favorite films ever."You're either going to love it or hate it." the concession stand employee said to me before the show, which was the gist of how I characterized most intelligent or groundbreaking films.At a span of 96 minutes that seemed like hours on end that I never wanted to stop, THE FOUNTAIN is a masterpiece of modern cinema by way of Darren Aronofski. It tells the stories of three seemingly different sequences simultaneously that, within the film's magnificent climax, become one with each other. Its lessons or messages are many and complex, requiring a heavy amount of pondering and thought for the intelligent movie patron, comparable to other legendary films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the recent CRASH. Which, perhaps is what the concessions worker meant. Those who find this film shoddy, repetitive and inconsistent simply lack the patience and capacity to think after a movie concludes. The average movie-goer demands explanations, answers and solutions to absolutely every concept within a movie, the audience member leaves confused, baffled and angry, blaming the movie for their feelings instead of humbling themselves to recognize their own lack of mind broadness and increased ignorance.Films like these demand the viewer to think, as if the film itself is an equation offered to the audience to solve. The audience then conjures what THEY believe to be the rightful meaning of a movie, whether it is actually the one or not, or if there is a solitary one at all. Like good music, the listener is forced to conceive their own elaboration of a song or movie, which, when considered, few may want to.This film is targeted at a specific genre of people: intelligent people. Films like these win awards while 2/3 of America disagree or rant that they've never even heard of the movie before. Will it receive #1 at the box office? Probably Not. Will it win an academy award? Perhaps. Will it be, in the short run merely forgotten only to be remembered by future generations? Perhaps.Aranofsky examines a fact of life that can only be deemed ultimate and utmost, and that is the concept of life, death and the hypothetical hypothesis of living forever. For when we lose someone, we mourn for their absence and wish for the reversal of their death above all things. This film asks the question, what if you could live on? Perhaps its primary aim is to not only remind us that we would not want to live forever, but that, ultimately, we have to die, and that the death of anything means the birth and living of another, from the death of a person, to the sprouting of flowers.

Doesn't make a ton of sense, but I admire the ambition,

tt0414993

Darren Arronofsky is a director of vision. He's directed nearly five films(with Black Swan coming out next month) and most of them have been visionary. Though one man's vision could only go so far. Critics hated Arronofsky's 3rd vision, The Fountain. Probably for the same reason they hated Vanilla sky. You know what... I liked Vanilla sky. And I liked this movie too.I will do my best to comprehend the plot. Hugh Jackan and Rachel Weiz play a couple. Jackman's a scientist, Weiz is a writer. Jackman tries his best to keep her alive when he finds out that she has a tumor. Going on around the time of the Spanish armada or something like that, Jackman plays a conquistador who's trying to save the princess(Rachael Weiz). And going on in heaven or something, Jackman is trying to save his wife(Rachael Weiz).I tried my best to summarize the plot. I think I got it wrong. I understood most of the film while I was watching it. I couldn't fit some things together. Such as"What is going on?" It took me about an hour out of 90 minutes to figure out the actual plot of this film.The film has a lot of spectacles. The effects are dazzling. The film is trippy and weird. Just like something Arronofsky or Richard Kelly would come up with. Critics shouldn't have bashed this film. Arronofsky had a vision, he brought it out, not many people got it.I understood the majority of it. The film probably needed to be more clear than it was. Instead of just presenting these things on the screen. The fountain looks great. It is a success visually. It, in my opinion, works as a film. Give it a chance.Visualize with Arronofsky.B+

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-876

ur22881716

title: Doesn't make a ton of sense, but I admire the ambition, review: Darren Arronofsky is a director of vision. He's directed nearly five films(with Black Swan coming out next month) and most of them have been visionary. Though one man's vision could only go so far. Critics hated Arronofsky's 3rd vision, The Fountain. Probably for the same reason they hated Vanilla sky. You know what... I liked Vanilla sky. And I liked this movie too.I will do my best to comprehend the plot. Hugh Jackan and Rachel Weiz play a couple. Jackman's a scientist, Weiz is a writer. Jackman tries his best to keep her alive when he finds out that she has a tumor. Going on around the time of the Spanish armada or something like that, Jackman plays a conquistador who's trying to save the princess(Rachael Weiz). And going on in heaven or something, Jackman is trying to save his wife(Rachael Weiz).I tried my best to summarize the plot. I think I got it wrong. I understood most of the film while I was watching it. I couldn't fit some things together. Such as"What is going on?" It took me about an hour out of 90 minutes to figure out the actual plot of this film.The film has a lot of spectacles. The effects are dazzling. The film is trippy and weird. Just like something Arronofsky or Richard Kelly would come up with. Critics shouldn't have bashed this film. Arronofsky had a vision, he brought it out, not many people got it.I understood the majority of it. The film probably needed to be more clear than it was. Instead of just presenting these things on the screen. The fountain looks great. It is a success visually. It, in my opinion, works as a film. Give it a chance.Visualize with Arronofsky.B+

What a mess

tt0414993

The Fountain is one of those movies which when you say you didn't like it those who did like it get very pretentious and say "Well you just didn't get it". No, I got it. And I hated it. It's nonsensical, interminable and in the end quite laughable. Just an absolute mess. This film spends 96 minutes (and it seems infinitely longer) beating you over the head with how important it is. Writer/director Darren Aronofsky is apparently very concerned with getting across his point about life and death and the meaning of it all. Maybe there is a powerful message in here somewhere. Too bad the message is stuck in such a terrible movie.Trying to unravel the plot here is really a waste of time. Suffice to say it's a lot simpler than it seems. Really it's not that hard to "get it". Unfortunately even if you understand exactly what's going on here that surely doesn't mean you'll like the film. Aronofsky takes a pretty simple story and tries to jazz it up with all kinds of special effects and fantasies. But it just doesn't work at all. Really all this film is about is a man not wanting his wife to die. That's it. All the existential mumbo-jumbo surrounding that basic story ends up falling flat. Aronofsky was apparently so concerned with making a statement that he failed to notice he was making a very bad movie. Anything nice to say? Well, many of the visuals are stunning. That's something I guess. But pretty visuals can't hide the failings of the story. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz have in other films proved themselves to be fine performers but they've got nothing to work with here. It was an admittedly intriguing concept and ambitious effort from Aronofsky but he couldn't pull it off. The film can best be summed up by one moment near the end. After being so darned serious, so determined to get its message across you figure at least the movie must be building to an eye-opening, thought-provoking, wondrous climax. Instead you get one of the most laughable moments in film history, a moment so bad you may well find yourself throwing things at the screen. I won't spoil it here, you'll know it when you see it. It's a moment which sums up the film itself as it's meant to be painfully serious but is unintentionally hilarious. At this point you'll certainly be laughing at the filmmaker, not with him. Give credit to Aronofsky for thinking outside the box (way, way outside the box) but the sad truth is his movie fails miserably.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-700

ur0915482

title: What a mess review: The Fountain is one of those movies which when you say you didn't like it those who did like it get very pretentious and say "Well you just didn't get it". No, I got it. And I hated it. It's nonsensical, interminable and in the end quite laughable. Just an absolute mess. This film spends 96 minutes (and it seems infinitely longer) beating you over the head with how important it is. Writer/director Darren Aronofsky is apparently very concerned with getting across his point about life and death and the meaning of it all. Maybe there is a powerful message in here somewhere. Too bad the message is stuck in such a terrible movie.Trying to unravel the plot here is really a waste of time. Suffice to say it's a lot simpler than it seems. Really it's not that hard to "get it". Unfortunately even if you understand exactly what's going on here that surely doesn't mean you'll like the film. Aronofsky takes a pretty simple story and tries to jazz it up with all kinds of special effects and fantasies. But it just doesn't work at all. Really all this film is about is a man not wanting his wife to die. That's it. All the existential mumbo-jumbo surrounding that basic story ends up falling flat. Aronofsky was apparently so concerned with making a statement that he failed to notice he was making a very bad movie. Anything nice to say? Well, many of the visuals are stunning. That's something I guess. But pretty visuals can't hide the failings of the story. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz have in other films proved themselves to be fine performers but they've got nothing to work with here. It was an admittedly intriguing concept and ambitious effort from Aronofsky but he couldn't pull it off. The film can best be summed up by one moment near the end. After being so darned serious, so determined to get its message across you figure at least the movie must be building to an eye-opening, thought-provoking, wondrous climax. Instead you get one of the most laughable moments in film history, a moment so bad you may well find yourself throwing things at the screen. I won't spoil it here, you'll know it when you see it. It's a moment which sums up the film itself as it's meant to be painfully serious but is unintentionally hilarious. At this point you'll certainly be laughing at the filmmaker, not with him. Give credit to Aronofsky for thinking outside the box (way, way outside the box) but the sad truth is his movie fails miserably.

Extraordinarlily ambitious, but a failure all the same.

tt0414993

This is an extraordinary film in so many ways which doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good one. Indeed, it is a failure but an ambitious, over-reaching one with bits here and there that really are amazing. It has had a troubled history. At one point the film was 'scrapped' and started over, it's leading actor recast. This is just one of the many unfortunate elements of the finished product since Hugh Jackman's performance is largely inadequate.The film follows three separate stories linked by, what we must assume are, the same pair of lovers played by the same performers, one set at the time of the conquistadors, the other in the present and the third in the distant future. It all has to do with the Tree of Life, (you know, the one from the Garden of Eden), love through eternity, conquering death and all that. The ideas themselves are fine but they don't gel; the film's troubled history is all too obvious. This feels like a film that has been badly chopped about, (maybe it hasn't; maybe this was all Aronofsky wanted), and the pretty terrible acting of all concerned doesn't help.Yet there is considerable imagination here and visually certain scenes take the breath away. The medieval sequences are sumptuous and the scenes set in 'deep space' are often magnificent. It's the 'middle' story that is mundane and yet these scenes are the anchor for everything else that happens. The stories are inter-linked so we keep moving back and forth in time until finally we tire of the dull central yarn. I didn't like Aronofsky's hyper-kinetic drugs movie "Requiem for a Dream". At least, this time round he showed, in tantalizing glimpses, just what a fine film-maker he can be ... and then he blew it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-722

ur1683855

title: Extraordinarlily ambitious, but a failure all the same. review: This is an extraordinary film in so many ways which doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good one. Indeed, it is a failure but an ambitious, over-reaching one with bits here and there that really are amazing. It has had a troubled history. At one point the film was 'scrapped' and started over, it's leading actor recast. This is just one of the many unfortunate elements of the finished product since Hugh Jackman's performance is largely inadequate.The film follows three separate stories linked by, what we must assume are, the same pair of lovers played by the same performers, one set at the time of the conquistadors, the other in the present and the third in the distant future. It all has to do with the Tree of Life, (you know, the one from the Garden of Eden), love through eternity, conquering death and all that. The ideas themselves are fine but they don't gel; the film's troubled history is all too obvious. This feels like a film that has been badly chopped about, (maybe it hasn't; maybe this was all Aronofsky wanted), and the pretty terrible acting of all concerned doesn't help.Yet there is considerable imagination here and visually certain scenes take the breath away. The medieval sequences are sumptuous and the scenes set in 'deep space' are often magnificent. It's the 'middle' story that is mundane and yet these scenes are the anchor for everything else that happens. The stories are inter-linked so we keep moving back and forth in time until finally we tire of the dull central yarn. I didn't like Aronofsky's hyper-kinetic drugs movie "Requiem for a Dream". At least, this time round he showed, in tantalizing glimpses, just what a fine film-maker he can be ... and then he blew it.

The Fountain delivers

tt0414993

Director Darren Aronofsky has done it once again. After the amazing masterpiece that was Requiem for a Dream, Aronofsky has made another treasure that is sure to quickly develop a huge fan base. The Fountain features Hugh Jackman (a busy man with X-Men 3, The Prestige, Happy Feet, Flushed Away, and Scoop all being released this year) and Rachel Weisz (who appears this year in the upcoming epic Eragon and is famous for her role in The Mummy films) and is directed, written, and produced by Darren Aronofsky.The Fountain mainly focuses upon a love story between Izzie (Weisz) and Thomas (Jackman) throughout three different time periods. In the first period, 16th Century Spain, Thomas is a conquistador sent by a Queen to find the Tree of Life (Fountain of Youth) in a Mayan temple. In present day, Thomas is a scientist working to find the cure for a brain tumor that is slowly killing his wife Izzie. The third and final section details Thomas in the 26th Century, traveling in a bubble with the Tree of Life through the stars on a voyage to the fabled Sebulba, his journey's end. The first hour or so of the film is thoroughly confusing, and nothing even becomes comprehensible until the last half an hour or so of the movie. Due to the film's bizarre nature, a second viewing is almost demanded by the viewer.The Fountain is full of spectacular images and stunning photography, lush worlds and faultless special effects. The three stories link together perfectly in the end, and even fun little phrases or links are thrown around here and there: In present day, Izzie tells Thomas, "You are my conquistador, always conquering." Hugh Jackman shines in with some of his best acting, and Rachel Weisz gets the job done, although her part was nowhere near as large as Jackman's. The plot is compelling, but the storytelling sometimes sucks away from the film – rather than being three separate stories, these periods are intertwined in a jumble of flashy scenes. The 16th century story is actually just a book Izzie is writing, and she wants Thomas to help her write the ending. The 26th century story features Thomas having flashbacks to the present-day occurrences. Somehow, everything connects in the end in a most jigsaw-like manner, and it all makes sense. The Fountain is sure to become a sci-fi classic in the years to come, as well as a gripping tale of romance and fantasy.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-294

ur7752337

title: The Fountain delivers review: Director Darren Aronofsky has done it once again. After the amazing masterpiece that was Requiem for a Dream, Aronofsky has made another treasure that is sure to quickly develop a huge fan base. The Fountain features Hugh Jackman (a busy man with X-Men 3, The Prestige, Happy Feet, Flushed Away, and Scoop all being released this year) and Rachel Weisz (who appears this year in the upcoming epic Eragon and is famous for her role in The Mummy films) and is directed, written, and produced by Darren Aronofsky.The Fountain mainly focuses upon a love story between Izzie (Weisz) and Thomas (Jackman) throughout three different time periods. In the first period, 16th Century Spain, Thomas is a conquistador sent by a Queen to find the Tree of Life (Fountain of Youth) in a Mayan temple. In present day, Thomas is a scientist working to find the cure for a brain tumor that is slowly killing his wife Izzie. The third and final section details Thomas in the 26th Century, traveling in a bubble with the Tree of Life through the stars on a voyage to the fabled Sebulba, his journey's end. The first hour or so of the film is thoroughly confusing, and nothing even becomes comprehensible until the last half an hour or so of the movie. Due to the film's bizarre nature, a second viewing is almost demanded by the viewer.The Fountain is full of spectacular images and stunning photography, lush worlds and faultless special effects. The three stories link together perfectly in the end, and even fun little phrases or links are thrown around here and there: In present day, Izzie tells Thomas, "You are my conquistador, always conquering." Hugh Jackman shines in with some of his best acting, and Rachel Weisz gets the job done, although her part was nowhere near as large as Jackman's. The plot is compelling, but the storytelling sometimes sucks away from the film – rather than being three separate stories, these periods are intertwined in a jumble of flashy scenes. The 16th century story is actually just a book Izzie is writing, and she wants Thomas to help her write the ending. The 26th century story features Thomas having flashbacks to the present-day occurrences. Somehow, everything connects in the end in a most jigsaw-like manner, and it all makes sense. The Fountain is sure to become a sci-fi classic in the years to come, as well as a gripping tale of romance and fantasy.

Cinematic poetry; haunting and beautiful

tt0414993

There are many movies which the viewer leaves with a feeling of entertainment; their money has been spent on a pleasing distraction from the doldrums of real life. Then there are films which the viewer leaves with a sense of fulfillment, as if they have witnessed something meaningful or thought provoking, an intellectually stimulating passage of time. And then there are films such as The Fountain, which defy any sort of conventional description, transcending archetype and cliché, and staying in the viewer's mind for months, even perhaps years afterwards.In an age so depressingly soaked with more and more remakes, sequels and plots overdone to death, it is truly refreshing to take in a film so new, so unique, so poignant. The Fountain dares to overcome being a typically trite love story, and instead embrace themes so daunting and all encompassing few modern artists attempt to express them, such as meaning of life, the true value of love, the power of trust and belief. While these may come across as sap-ridden and over-glorified, rest assured that The Fountain handles its content in a truly intelligent and mature fashion. Because of the heavy subject matter of the film and the convoluted way its story is explained, do not be surprised if a second or third viewing is necessary to totally grasp all The Fountain is attempting to communicate. It may seem boggling or even downright confusing, but if the viewer simply accepts it as a cinematic poem, which even if not understood can still be appreciated for its obscure beauty, the film becomes much less alienating and the viewer marvels at the sheer scope of the film if nothing else. Director Darren Aronofsky deserves mountains of praise for conceiving such an ambitious and remarkably inventive feat. While his screenplay may occasionally drift into being confusing or frustrating, with extensive use of stilted dialogue and cutting in between the story's three time periods, it never affects one's enjoyment of the film - there is far too much to appreciate going on for the occasional small irritation to affect. The film's visuals, if nothing else, are worth immense credit alone - never before have such dazzling effects, as well as brilliant cinematography, inventive, stunning sets and costumes been used to such superb effect. Aronofsky avoided using CGI effects for the futuristic sequences, instead superimposing microphotography of reactions in petri dishes, and it really shows how even in such a computer saturated world as today, stunning visuals can be created without spending millions on technological costs. As well as being one of the most philosophically daunting and thought provoking films of the decade, The Fountain also proves to be arguably the most visually sumptuous movie in recent memory. Clint Mansell's exquisitely moody score is similarly beautiful, and perfectly compliments the edgy yet beautiful tone of the film.Hugh Jackman has been proving himself to be one of the most fearless, talented and charismatic actors of his generation, and he gives one of his strongest and most emotional performances to date. Playing three characters in radically different time periods simultaneously, Jackman captures our sympathies through his characters' mutual passion, drive and dedication - few other actors would have been capable of such a moving performance. Rachel Weisz, Aronofsky's wife, matches Jackman at every turn, delivering a mystical and captivating performance through each time period. Though the supporting cast is sparsely used, Ellen Burstyn stands out as a caring doctor in the twentieth century storyline, though the film unquestionably belongs to Jackman and Weisz, who prove themselves more than up to the task. It is highly difficult to describe such a radically unique film such as The Fountain - the film stands out as one of the most visually inventive, philosophical and soul searching efforts in recent history, completely unlike anything most viewers are likely to have ever seen before. Yet at the core of it all is a simple love story, which is executed with as much emotional weight and tenderness as any of the grandiose themes surrounding it. Is The Fountain a perfect film? No, though the word is hard to describe and really an entirely subjective quality anyway. What the Fountain does offer is an epic story of love and rebirth, spanning generations and complimented by simply stunning visuals. Don't expect necessarily to entirely understand the film upon first completing it, but instead allow it to blossom over time until it can be fully appreciated and respected. In a day and age so starved of originality, The Fountain is worth seeing simply for proof that fresh and touching work can still be produced, and that from the depths of commercial garbage, beauty can still emerge. -9/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-453

ur3728510

title: Cinematic poetry; haunting and beautiful review: There are many movies which the viewer leaves with a feeling of entertainment; their money has been spent on a pleasing distraction from the doldrums of real life. Then there are films which the viewer leaves with a sense of fulfillment, as if they have witnessed something meaningful or thought provoking, an intellectually stimulating passage of time. And then there are films such as The Fountain, which defy any sort of conventional description, transcending archetype and cliché, and staying in the viewer's mind for months, even perhaps years afterwards.In an age so depressingly soaked with more and more remakes, sequels and plots overdone to death, it is truly refreshing to take in a film so new, so unique, so poignant. The Fountain dares to overcome being a typically trite love story, and instead embrace themes so daunting and all encompassing few modern artists attempt to express them, such as meaning of life, the true value of love, the power of trust and belief. While these may come across as sap-ridden and over-glorified, rest assured that The Fountain handles its content in a truly intelligent and mature fashion. Because of the heavy subject matter of the film and the convoluted way its story is explained, do not be surprised if a second or third viewing is necessary to totally grasp all The Fountain is attempting to communicate. It may seem boggling or even downright confusing, but if the viewer simply accepts it as a cinematic poem, which even if not understood can still be appreciated for its obscure beauty, the film becomes much less alienating and the viewer marvels at the sheer scope of the film if nothing else. Director Darren Aronofsky deserves mountains of praise for conceiving such an ambitious and remarkably inventive feat. While his screenplay may occasionally drift into being confusing or frustrating, with extensive use of stilted dialogue and cutting in between the story's three time periods, it never affects one's enjoyment of the film - there is far too much to appreciate going on for the occasional small irritation to affect. The film's visuals, if nothing else, are worth immense credit alone - never before have such dazzling effects, as well as brilliant cinematography, inventive, stunning sets and costumes been used to such superb effect. Aronofsky avoided using CGI effects for the futuristic sequences, instead superimposing microphotography of reactions in petri dishes, and it really shows how even in such a computer saturated world as today, stunning visuals can be created without spending millions on technological costs. As well as being one of the most philosophically daunting and thought provoking films of the decade, The Fountain also proves to be arguably the most visually sumptuous movie in recent memory. Clint Mansell's exquisitely moody score is similarly beautiful, and perfectly compliments the edgy yet beautiful tone of the film.Hugh Jackman has been proving himself to be one of the most fearless, talented and charismatic actors of his generation, and he gives one of his strongest and most emotional performances to date. Playing three characters in radically different time periods simultaneously, Jackman captures our sympathies through his characters' mutual passion, drive and dedication - few other actors would have been capable of such a moving performance. Rachel Weisz, Aronofsky's wife, matches Jackman at every turn, delivering a mystical and captivating performance through each time period. Though the supporting cast is sparsely used, Ellen Burstyn stands out as a caring doctor in the twentieth century storyline, though the film unquestionably belongs to Jackman and Weisz, who prove themselves more than up to the task. It is highly difficult to describe such a radically unique film such as The Fountain - the film stands out as one of the most visually inventive, philosophical and soul searching efforts in recent history, completely unlike anything most viewers are likely to have ever seen before. Yet at the core of it all is a simple love story, which is executed with as much emotional weight and tenderness as any of the grandiose themes surrounding it. Is The Fountain a perfect film? No, though the word is hard to describe and really an entirely subjective quality anyway. What the Fountain does offer is an epic story of love and rebirth, spanning generations and complimented by simply stunning visuals. Don't expect necessarily to entirely understand the film upon first completing it, but instead allow it to blossom over time until it can be fully appreciated and respected. In a day and age so starved of originality, The Fountain is worth seeing simply for proof that fresh and touching work can still be produced, and that from the depths of commercial garbage, beauty can still emerge. -9/10

Death breeds creation…The Fountain

tt0414993

I never thought I would ever thank Brad Pitt for causing the utter failure of The Fountain launching principal photography three years ago. However, his leaving the production to do Troy may have resulted in the finest film-going experience I have ever had. Darren Aronofsky's masterpiece could only have been ruined by the doubled budget and lack of Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz's stellar performances. The epic scope this film has is that much better due to the small-scale effects honed and enlarged to full utilization. Much like this, Tom and Izzi's quest for eternal life spans mankind yet could be found inside themselves if they only looked hard enough. The Fountain is definitely a fantasy for adults and helps show the world the lengths we will go for love and how it can blind us to what truly matters in that most precious of unions.One can't truly explain this film; it is an experience that must be seen firsthand to even begin to fathom the effect it can have on the viewer. Aronofsky has crafted a tale of love through the pain of death. Hugh Jackman is a neurosurgeon desperately trying to discover a way to decrease the growth of tumors. While on a mission to help prevent death and disease in the world, he also must find a way to save his dying wife from the cancer that has begun taking its hold on her. The looming death set before Izzi, played with pure emotion by Rachel Weisz, has been accepted, yet can't be by her husband who knows he can cure her if he just had more time. Jackman is a shattered man on a quest which once started together, but now finishes alone. The futility of his situation cannot sink in and as a result he must continue on while his wife lays dying, trying her hardest to let him understand what is to come in the future. She shares her novel about a conquistador on a journey for Eden's Tree of Life, telling him that he needs to write the conclusion. The quest along the road to awe has been laid out for Tom and it is up to him to decide what he will do when he comes face to face with destiny. This surgeon will come to a choice where he will have to either choose finding the end of death, planting a tree to gather his wife's spirit for an afterlife through an ancient Mayan tale of Seebalba, or allow himself to accept that finality and hope for a continuing to life beyond it.While at first it may seem a bit convoluted and pretentious, this story is a simple one. Love binds us to each other and pulls a veil over the big picture when it does not concern the survival of our union. Instead of cherishing the time we have together on Earth, we would rather waste it all in desperate attempts to prolong our stay. Much like Adam and Eve being thrown from Eden for wanting more than each other, Tom and Izzi are at the point of their journey where they can eat the fruit and risk losing everything, or they can take a step back and live for the moment. We all face this challenge throughout our lives, and will continue to as the years go by. Darren Aronofsky shows us the problem as far back as the Spanish Inquisition, as far forward as the end of time being pulled into the nebular entrance to eternity, and at the present day, here and now. Izzi relates to the beauty of ancient Mayan tales of the afterlife and through her writings on a past life, sparks her husband's mind to imagine the journey through time and the road of disappointment it will lead him on. That road needs to be taken, however, for without the knowledge of pain and failure, one will never see that he must look inside himself for the answers that will bring him back to his love. When Jackman finally realizes what must happen, he expresses sheer joy and relief that his story has come to close, yet his life has been reborn for eternity.After his genius with previous films Pi and Requiem for a Dream, it is hard to believe that Aronofsky could enhance the medium of cinema even further. While others take from past visionaries and apply their findings to their own work, Aronofsky creates those new ways that will be adopted in the future. He is an innovator and with his work here takes another step closer, if not to totally justifying the call by some that he is the new Stanley Kubrick. Each step of The Fountain is orchestrated to the utmost detail and the symphony is one for the ages. Along with Clint Mansell's haunting score, Badalamenti to Darren's Lynch, this tale is one for all senses. The palpability and lushness of the effects in the future scenes are a feat to behold. Crossing between three time periods is daunting in itself, yet in the final minutes, going through each at breakneck speed leading to the tale's culmination is brilliant. No one else has the eye to make every banal, static shot seem magical and full of life. With seamless dissolves and gorgeous compositions, The Fountain is a feast for the eyes, intriguing at ever turn. However, the true magic lies in the story being told, one that will break your heart while simultaneously breathing a hope for everlasting love inside of you.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-85

ur2020154

title: Death breeds creation…The Fountain review: I never thought I would ever thank Brad Pitt for causing the utter failure of The Fountain launching principal photography three years ago. However, his leaving the production to do Troy may have resulted in the finest film-going experience I have ever had. Darren Aronofsky's masterpiece could only have been ruined by the doubled budget and lack of Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz's stellar performances. The epic scope this film has is that much better due to the small-scale effects honed and enlarged to full utilization. Much like this, Tom and Izzi's quest for eternal life spans mankind yet could be found inside themselves if they only looked hard enough. The Fountain is definitely a fantasy for adults and helps show the world the lengths we will go for love and how it can blind us to what truly matters in that most precious of unions.One can't truly explain this film; it is an experience that must be seen firsthand to even begin to fathom the effect it can have on the viewer. Aronofsky has crafted a tale of love through the pain of death. Hugh Jackman is a neurosurgeon desperately trying to discover a way to decrease the growth of tumors. While on a mission to help prevent death and disease in the world, he also must find a way to save his dying wife from the cancer that has begun taking its hold on her. The looming death set before Izzi, played with pure emotion by Rachel Weisz, has been accepted, yet can't be by her husband who knows he can cure her if he just had more time. Jackman is a shattered man on a quest which once started together, but now finishes alone. The futility of his situation cannot sink in and as a result he must continue on while his wife lays dying, trying her hardest to let him understand what is to come in the future. She shares her novel about a conquistador on a journey for Eden's Tree of Life, telling him that he needs to write the conclusion. The quest along the road to awe has been laid out for Tom and it is up to him to decide what he will do when he comes face to face with destiny. This surgeon will come to a choice where he will have to either choose finding the end of death, planting a tree to gather his wife's spirit for an afterlife through an ancient Mayan tale of Seebalba, or allow himself to accept that finality and hope for a continuing to life beyond it.While at first it may seem a bit convoluted and pretentious, this story is a simple one. Love binds us to each other and pulls a veil over the big picture when it does not concern the survival of our union. Instead of cherishing the time we have together on Earth, we would rather waste it all in desperate attempts to prolong our stay. Much like Adam and Eve being thrown from Eden for wanting more than each other, Tom and Izzi are at the point of their journey where they can eat the fruit and risk losing everything, or they can take a step back and live for the moment. We all face this challenge throughout our lives, and will continue to as the years go by. Darren Aronofsky shows us the problem as far back as the Spanish Inquisition, as far forward as the end of time being pulled into the nebular entrance to eternity, and at the present day, here and now. Izzi relates to the beauty of ancient Mayan tales of the afterlife and through her writings on a past life, sparks her husband's mind to imagine the journey through time and the road of disappointment it will lead him on. That road needs to be taken, however, for without the knowledge of pain and failure, one will never see that he must look inside himself for the answers that will bring him back to his love. When Jackman finally realizes what must happen, he expresses sheer joy and relief that his story has come to close, yet his life has been reborn for eternity.After his genius with previous films Pi and Requiem for a Dream, it is hard to believe that Aronofsky could enhance the medium of cinema even further. While others take from past visionaries and apply their findings to their own work, Aronofsky creates those new ways that will be adopted in the future. He is an innovator and with his work here takes another step closer, if not to totally justifying the call by some that he is the new Stanley Kubrick. Each step of The Fountain is orchestrated to the utmost detail and the symphony is one for the ages. Along with Clint Mansell's haunting score, Badalamenti to Darren's Lynch, this tale is one for all senses. The palpability and lushness of the effects in the future scenes are a feat to behold. Crossing between three time periods is daunting in itself, yet in the final minutes, going through each at breakneck speed leading to the tale's culmination is brilliant. No one else has the eye to make every banal, static shot seem magical and full of life. With seamless dissolves and gorgeous compositions, The Fountain is a feast for the eyes, intriguing at ever turn. However, the true magic lies in the story being told, one that will break your heart while simultaneously breathing a hope for everlasting love inside of you.

Pure imagination pure surreal brilliance!

tt0414993

Simply put this film is everything a modern movie should be...Visually stunning and movingly beautiful in almost every way leaving so many questions un answered at the end. Superb heart breaking performances by Hugh and Rachel, this is one of the best films I have seen this year.Anything that makes a person question this many topics after a single watch is a triumph of immense proportions in my view! Cinematography that will make even the greatest of D.P's dribble with jealousy and a musical score that simply brings so much more from the film that mere words could possibly do all add to the almost perfect atmosphere created by the film makers.Very simply, this should not be missed and armed with an open mind, an imagination and a lot of patience, this could be one of the finest films you will ever see.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-568

ur4708883

title: Pure imagination pure surreal brilliance! review: Simply put this film is everything a modern movie should be...Visually stunning and movingly beautiful in almost every way leaving so many questions un answered at the end. Superb heart breaking performances by Hugh and Rachel, this is one of the best films I have seen this year.Anything that makes a person question this many topics after a single watch is a triumph of immense proportions in my view! Cinematography that will make even the greatest of D.P's dribble with jealousy and a musical score that simply brings so much more from the film that mere words could possibly do all add to the almost perfect atmosphere created by the film makers.Very simply, this should not be missed and armed with an open mind, an imagination and a lot of patience, this could be one of the finest films you will ever see.

Bewilderment...

tt0414993

First off, I have to state that in order to explain this film, you have to see it yourself. it is almost impossible to write this review, for the film had so much wonder that left me and the audience bewildered and speechless. It is a highly unusually film that could be seen in many different views. That said, a lot of previous reviews of this film that I have read are quite different and off key, at least from the way I viewed the film.To put this film in simpler terms, it is about the whole topic of death. Which includes spirituality, reincarnation, loads and loads of symbolism, specifically with trees, henceforth the tree of life, and also various time periods. The story is about a couple Tom Creo (Hugh Jackman) and Izzi Creo (rachel Weisz). It ends up that Izzy has cancer and is near death. Tom does everything in his power to stop her from dying.meanwhile, back in the 1500s, the same two people are in the same circumstances, and Tom, known as the Conquistador is sent to South America to locate the Tree of Life. Both stories intertwine and bring together neatly and dramatically with surprising ends. both are great pieces to the story.However, the third story is very confusing, which is the story 500 years from modern-day, and it is when Tom is an astronaut, who is bound to a tree that is dying, supposedly representing his ill wife. he travels in a bubble to a star that suppsoedly gives you rebirth and life. This story, in my mind, pulled away and created diversions from the original two stories. It took a long time to explain what the story stood for, and it at least gave some explanation at the end of the film, which was no more than mere implications, which left me hanging saying "Okay, now what?" Another thing about the film was that the director used the same scenes throughout the film, as if to warn the audience, "okay, it's time for a new scene". This grew very annoying, and only slowed the pace of the film, making a 95 minute film feel an hour extra longer. These delays also caused some damage to the end, which was left hanging, instead of totally resolved. in other words, there was to be more of the film at the end, but was cut short, and left almost like a cliffhanger (previously stated earlier in the paragraph).Besides these flaws, the film was great. The director uses a lot of up closes and different camera angles compared to the average Hollywood director. Rachel Weisz and Hugh Jackamn gave powerful performances, but neither of them were Oscar worthy. The visual effects were flat out amazing, and beyond the works of Lord of the Rings, not to mention the use of beautiful cinematography that gave a feel to the film, as well as other small details such as: costumes, set-decoration, and a moving music score by Clint Mansell.It was a great film that was unfortunately flawed, but still held a strong lesson that tells us that we're all going to die someday, but it's what we do in our life that defines us.*** out of **** Not the best thing, but a decent film

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-191

ur3153189

title: Bewilderment... review: First off, I have to state that in order to explain this film, you have to see it yourself. it is almost impossible to write this review, for the film had so much wonder that left me and the audience bewildered and speechless. It is a highly unusually film that could be seen in many different views. That said, a lot of previous reviews of this film that I have read are quite different and off key, at least from the way I viewed the film.To put this film in simpler terms, it is about the whole topic of death. Which includes spirituality, reincarnation, loads and loads of symbolism, specifically with trees, henceforth the tree of life, and also various time periods. The story is about a couple Tom Creo (Hugh Jackman) and Izzi Creo (rachel Weisz). It ends up that Izzy has cancer and is near death. Tom does everything in his power to stop her from dying.meanwhile, back in the 1500s, the same two people are in the same circumstances, and Tom, known as the Conquistador is sent to South America to locate the Tree of Life. Both stories intertwine and bring together neatly and dramatically with surprising ends. both are great pieces to the story.However, the third story is very confusing, which is the story 500 years from modern-day, and it is when Tom is an astronaut, who is bound to a tree that is dying, supposedly representing his ill wife. he travels in a bubble to a star that suppsoedly gives you rebirth and life. This story, in my mind, pulled away and created diversions from the original two stories. It took a long time to explain what the story stood for, and it at least gave some explanation at the end of the film, which was no more than mere implications, which left me hanging saying "Okay, now what?" Another thing about the film was that the director used the same scenes throughout the film, as if to warn the audience, "okay, it's time for a new scene". This grew very annoying, and only slowed the pace of the film, making a 95 minute film feel an hour extra longer. These delays also caused some damage to the end, which was left hanging, instead of totally resolved. in other words, there was to be more of the film at the end, but was cut short, and left almost like a cliffhanger (previously stated earlier in the paragraph).Besides these flaws, the film was great. The director uses a lot of up closes and different camera angles compared to the average Hollywood director. Rachel Weisz and Hugh Jackamn gave powerful performances, but neither of them were Oscar worthy. The visual effects were flat out amazing, and beyond the works of Lord of the Rings, not to mention the use of beautiful cinematography that gave a feel to the film, as well as other small details such as: costumes, set-decoration, and a moving music score by Clint Mansell.It was a great film that was unfortunately flawed, but still held a strong lesson that tells us that we're all going to die someday, but it's what we do in our life that defines us.*** out of **** Not the best thing, but a decent film

Not even earnest acting by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz could save this film

tt0414993

Horrible and pretentious. Not even earnest acting by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz could save this film by Weisz's fiancé, writer/director Darren Aronofsky. Some woman in the cinema was snoring loudly and none of us bothered to shush her because it was understandably a snoozefest.The main plot line is simple: Tom (Jackman) is a doctor married to Izzi (Weisz), a dying writer. Tom furiously tries to find a cure for her disease. He says, "Death is a disease, it's like any other. And there's a cure. A cure - and I will find it."Then the story finds parallels with the story Izzi is writing in her book (in longhand, using old school pen and ink, for crying out loud, with no erasures!), where Tom and Izzi also play the characters. It also has a third subplot (?) where Tom is a bald, tattooed Zen-like monk-like man trapped in a snow globe. Lots of New Age mumbo jumbo, which was supposed to be visually poetic, tons of closeups of something that looked like yellow amber, and stylized cinematography. The Fountain has terribly redundant and cheesy writing, too:Izzi: Will you deliver Spain from bondage? Tom Verde: Upon my honor and my life. Izzi: Then you shall take this ring to remind you of your promise. You shall wear it when you find Eden, and when you return, I shall be your Eve. Together we will live forever.Even hot, talented men like Jackman make mistakes. Imagine agreeing to shaving his head and chest for the worst sequence ever with an object (a tree). Tom Hanks and 'Wilson' in Cast Away did so much better. That was 96 mins. of my life I will never get back. Don't make the same mistake I made. Watch something else.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-421

ur10756301

title: Not even earnest acting by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz could save this film review: Horrible and pretentious. Not even earnest acting by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz could save this film by Weisz's fiancé, writer/director Darren Aronofsky. Some woman in the cinema was snoring loudly and none of us bothered to shush her because it was understandably a snoozefest.The main plot line is simple: Tom (Jackman) is a doctor married to Izzi (Weisz), a dying writer. Tom furiously tries to find a cure for her disease. He says, "Death is a disease, it's like any other. And there's a cure. A cure - and I will find it."Then the story finds parallels with the story Izzi is writing in her book (in longhand, using old school pen and ink, for crying out loud, with no erasures!), where Tom and Izzi also play the characters. It also has a third subplot (?) where Tom is a bald, tattooed Zen-like monk-like man trapped in a snow globe. Lots of New Age mumbo jumbo, which was supposed to be visually poetic, tons of closeups of something that looked like yellow amber, and stylized cinematography. The Fountain has terribly redundant and cheesy writing, too:Izzi: Will you deliver Spain from bondage? Tom Verde: Upon my honor and my life. Izzi: Then you shall take this ring to remind you of your promise. You shall wear it when you find Eden, and when you return, I shall be your Eve. Together we will live forever.Even hot, talented men like Jackman make mistakes. Imagine agreeing to shaving his head and chest for the worst sequence ever with an object (a tree). Tom Hanks and 'Wilson' in Cast Away did so much better. That was 96 mins. of my life I will never get back. Don't make the same mistake I made. Watch something else.

Attention Sci-Fi Geeks: Take Your Women To See This Flick!

tt0414993

Okay all of you sci-fi geeks out there. It's time to drag your spouse, girlfriend, or significant other out again. They'll hem and haw about going to see "yet another" science fiction film with you, but this time redemption is at your feet.THE FOUNTAIN is, for all intents and purposes, a love story built around an SF theme: immortality and the future. But there aren't any magical conjurers or any time machines. The story is all too human, spanning eons as we witness the immortality of ...love. It may sound a bit offish to some SF fans, but don't let it be. There are still amazing scenes shot using bizarre methods (micro-photography of petri dishes?) instead of the usual CGI, a remarkable coherency between the vast time scales, and some damn fine acting.Hugh Jackman (X-Men) stars as Tomas, a man in love with his queen (during the Spanish Inquisition), his terminally ill wife (present day), and the symbol of his wife's immortality (in the distant future). Tomas' queen/wife/symbol is none other than the amazing Rachel Weisz (THE CONSTANT GARDNER) known throughout the film as Izzi. Tomas, in the earliest time of the Spanish Inquisition, is trying to save his beloved queen by finding the tree of life (something hinted at in many religions, including Christianity where Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge causing God to yank away the tree of life and hide it).We then jump to present day and find Doctor Tomas desperately searching for a cancer cure in order to save his wife, Izzi. Again, the tree of life plays a part as he and his research team uncover a strange piece of bark from a long forgotten tree. It's healing properties are astounding, but will the cure come in time to save Izzi? The most distant time is that of Tomas on an existential journey through space with a tree as his only companion. Again, the tree of life, but this time the tree is appropriately a symbol of his wife.Weaving the conquistador past, with present day medicine, and an uncertain future, director Darren Aronofsky has really given us a piece of poetry as art. This isn't too surprising coming from Aronofsky, the same director of such mind-benders as PI and REQUIEM FOR A DREAM. Don't expect a formulaic plot or for things to be spelled out. You know better than that if you've seen any of this director's work. But that's part of the big draw. You move along with the story rather than being forcibly dragged through it. It flows on its own ethereal plain, never stopping, never letting the viewers' eyes rest. Each scene is shot to near perfection, using dark sets, lighted doorways, and golden globes to exquisite advantage.But it's the love story between Izzi and Tomas that holds the entire movie together. Their dedication to one another is palpable, and when Izzi sits near death's doorstep, you can feel Tomas' overwhelming need to save her, his beloved for all time.So it's time to haul your spouse/girlfriend/significant other kicking and screaming into the theater again. And they'll love you for it later. Perhaps you might even "get lucky" after the film...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-312

ur7704831

title: Attention Sci-Fi Geeks: Take Your Women To See This Flick! review: Okay all of you sci-fi geeks out there. It's time to drag your spouse, girlfriend, or significant other out again. They'll hem and haw about going to see "yet another" science fiction film with you, but this time redemption is at your feet.THE FOUNTAIN is, for all intents and purposes, a love story built around an SF theme: immortality and the future. But there aren't any magical conjurers or any time machines. The story is all too human, spanning eons as we witness the immortality of ...love. It may sound a bit offish to some SF fans, but don't let it be. There are still amazing scenes shot using bizarre methods (micro-photography of petri dishes?) instead of the usual CGI, a remarkable coherency between the vast time scales, and some damn fine acting.Hugh Jackman (X-Men) stars as Tomas, a man in love with his queen (during the Spanish Inquisition), his terminally ill wife (present day), and the symbol of his wife's immortality (in the distant future). Tomas' queen/wife/symbol is none other than the amazing Rachel Weisz (THE CONSTANT GARDNER) known throughout the film as Izzi. Tomas, in the earliest time of the Spanish Inquisition, is trying to save his beloved queen by finding the tree of life (something hinted at in many religions, including Christianity where Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge causing God to yank away the tree of life and hide it).We then jump to present day and find Doctor Tomas desperately searching for a cancer cure in order to save his wife, Izzi. Again, the tree of life plays a part as he and his research team uncover a strange piece of bark from a long forgotten tree. It's healing properties are astounding, but will the cure come in time to save Izzi? The most distant time is that of Tomas on an existential journey through space with a tree as his only companion. Again, the tree of life, but this time the tree is appropriately a symbol of his wife.Weaving the conquistador past, with present day medicine, and an uncertain future, director Darren Aronofsky has really given us a piece of poetry as art. This isn't too surprising coming from Aronofsky, the same director of such mind-benders as PI and REQUIEM FOR A DREAM. Don't expect a formulaic plot or for things to be spelled out. You know better than that if you've seen any of this director's work. But that's part of the big draw. You move along with the story rather than being forcibly dragged through it. It flows on its own ethereal plain, never stopping, never letting the viewers' eyes rest. Each scene is shot to near perfection, using dark sets, lighted doorways, and golden globes to exquisite advantage.But it's the love story between Izzi and Tomas that holds the entire movie together. Their dedication to one another is palpable, and when Izzi sits near death's doorstep, you can feel Tomas' overwhelming need to save her, his beloved for all time.So it's time to haul your spouse/girlfriend/significant other kicking and screaming into the theater again. And they'll love you for it later. Perhaps you might even "get lucky" after the film...

An emotional journey.

tt0414993

Aronofsky perfects his vision with this wondrous, emotionally draining experience. It transcends being a film and completely immerses the audience into it's world and story; drawing them further and further along until the explosive finale. I wasn't too crazy about some of the dialogue, and Cliff Curtis' horrific accent almost made me kill myself but aside from those two minor things, the entire film was mind-blowing. Hugh Jackman's intense, emotional performance was stunning and had me in tears. Rachel Weisz was also quite good, though she suffered from the majority of the dialogue that I didn't like. Aronofsky creates his vision by combining the sensational score and cinematography to drive the viewer along this incredible journey.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-725

ur9521536

title: An emotional journey. review: Aronofsky perfects his vision with this wondrous, emotionally draining experience. It transcends being a film and completely immerses the audience into it's world and story; drawing them further and further along until the explosive finale. I wasn't too crazy about some of the dialogue, and Cliff Curtis' horrific accent almost made me kill myself but aside from those two minor things, the entire film was mind-blowing. Hugh Jackman's intense, emotional performance was stunning and had me in tears. Rachel Weisz was also quite good, though she suffered from the majority of the dialogue that I didn't like. Aronofsky creates his vision by combining the sensational score and cinematography to drive the viewer along this incredible journey.

Though obscure in its ways, "The Fountain" is rich and beautiful

tt0414993

"The Fountain" often feels like an interlocking puzzle of eras, characters and symbolism, yet there is a distinct overall thematic tone to the film, almost a decoder that once utilized brings out the best in the film.It's the kind of movie that for most people will necessitate a second viewing. Once the viewer can set aside thoughts of the plot direction, the film opens up a lot more in its discussion of life and death and the idea of eternal life. Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream, Pi) has brought to life an art film that wraps itself in the genres of science-fiction and mythical history.At its core, "The Fountain" is about the relationship between Tommy and Izzy (Jackman and Weisz), the names of their characters in the contemporary storyline. This is the easiest access point for the viewer and consequently the most important, we see a very relatable example in that Izzy is dying and Tommy, a doctor researching tumor cures, would do anything to save her. Arronofsky uses this as a spring board into the more obscure ways of telling the story (inquisition era Spain and conquering the Mayans and the distant future). To keep them connected, he imposes images of the characters from one storyline to another and uses consistent symbols. Also, his brilliant use of lighting gives the film a distinct look and an overall mystical feel.It's tough to give up on making the plot fit and make sense neatly like a normal film, but this is not a normal film. It is a story about themes that are exemplified by the relationship between the main characters. It is a film about emotions and ideas and discussing them in very abstract ways. It is difficult and tough to access, but very ripe for deep thinking or discussion.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-712

ur2496397

title: Though obscure in its ways, "The Fountain" is rich and beautiful review: "The Fountain" often feels like an interlocking puzzle of eras, characters and symbolism, yet there is a distinct overall thematic tone to the film, almost a decoder that once utilized brings out the best in the film.It's the kind of movie that for most people will necessitate a second viewing. Once the viewer can set aside thoughts of the plot direction, the film opens up a lot more in its discussion of life and death and the idea of eternal life. Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream, Pi) has brought to life an art film that wraps itself in the genres of science-fiction and mythical history.At its core, "The Fountain" is about the relationship between Tommy and Izzy (Jackman and Weisz), the names of their characters in the contemporary storyline. This is the easiest access point for the viewer and consequently the most important, we see a very relatable example in that Izzy is dying and Tommy, a doctor researching tumor cures, would do anything to save her. Arronofsky uses this as a spring board into the more obscure ways of telling the story (inquisition era Spain and conquering the Mayans and the distant future). To keep them connected, he imposes images of the characters from one storyline to another and uses consistent symbols. Also, his brilliant use of lighting gives the film a distinct look and an overall mystical feel.It's tough to give up on making the plot fit and make sense neatly like a normal film, but this is not a normal film. It is a story about themes that are exemplified by the relationship between the main characters. It is a film about emotions and ideas and discussing them in very abstract ways. It is difficult and tough to access, but very ripe for deep thinking or discussion.

Complex story about love, humanity and death

tt0414993

THE FOUNTAIN became a long-awaited project, the production and shooting of it took many years, the result is a complex love & death story with sterling performances from both Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. There are three stories to be told; the main story is about doctor Tom who's doing everything in his power to prevail his wife's tragic fate; death of cancer. This is a moving and powerful story that is the main-spine of the movie, keeping it fairly understandably and appealing. Then we go back to the 15th century, were Tomas is having a burning passion for his country Spain as the country is on its last breakdown before its inquisitor forges a full-on dictator; Tomas is thereby sent out by the Queen of Spain to find the Tree of Life, hidden somewhere in the deep jungle, strongly guarded by Maia-Indians - and then, we travel into 2500, were Tommy is living in a bobble in space together with the Tree of Life, ready to sacrifice for his love for his now-dead wife so they can finally live together for ever. I don't even know if I got the story correctly, but I know that THE FOUNTAIN gripped me right away and it is one of the most compelling and fascinating movies of 2007. Especially Jackman and Weisz keeps the movie burning, as their performances stands as probably their best so far. A very interesting and very fascinating movie, handling the topics of true love, life and death.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-656

ur1732001

title: Complex story about love, humanity and death review: THE FOUNTAIN became a long-awaited project, the production and shooting of it took many years, the result is a complex love & death story with sterling performances from both Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. There are three stories to be told; the main story is about doctor Tom who's doing everything in his power to prevail his wife's tragic fate; death of cancer. This is a moving and powerful story that is the main-spine of the movie, keeping it fairly understandably and appealing. Then we go back to the 15th century, were Tomas is having a burning passion for his country Spain as the country is on its last breakdown before its inquisitor forges a full-on dictator; Tomas is thereby sent out by the Queen of Spain to find the Tree of Life, hidden somewhere in the deep jungle, strongly guarded by Maia-Indians - and then, we travel into 2500, were Tommy is living in a bobble in space together with the Tree of Life, ready to sacrifice for his love for his now-dead wife so they can finally live together for ever. I don't even know if I got the story correctly, but I know that THE FOUNTAIN gripped me right away and it is one of the most compelling and fascinating movies of 2007. Especially Jackman and Weisz keeps the movie burning, as their performances stands as probably their best so far. A very interesting and very fascinating movie, handling the topics of true love, life and death.

Darren Aronofsky's best film to date!

tt0414993

I remember seeing the previews for this movie in theaters, and saying I want to see that, but when the film came out I completely forgot about it. Then the other day I saw it laying on a store shelf at my local DVD store, and I decided to pick it up. Now Darren Aronofsky is in my opinion one of the finest filmmakers out there right now. His works sport unique concepts filled with endless imagination, that you never really find in American films nowadays. Aronofsky got his start doing low budget Indy films; and finally with the Fountain, Aronofsky has the money to just let his imagination run free, and he delivers his best film to date.The story of the Fountain is about one man's search for immortality over the course of a thousand years, resulting in a story that is both about the meaning of life and death.As mentioned the film, which was both written and directed by Aronofsky, is simply amazing. The direction is crisp, the cinematography is a wonder to behold, the score is magnificent sound to go along with the visual splendor, and the acting from this stellar cast is terrific, in particular the performance from Hugh Jackman.The Fountain is simply one of the best films I have seen in a long time, it is heartbreaking and emotional, while also being terrific eye candy; and just like any other film from Darren Aronofsky, you must be willing to go into unexplored territory. If you are wanting a safe movie that follows all of the typical guidelines for drama films, then this isn't for you; but if you want a movie that takes you places dramatically that no other movie has ever dared to go, then you will love the Fountain.Aronofsky has outdone himself here with a true classic for the ages.I give the Fountain a perfect 10 out of 10!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-767

ur6136793

title: Darren Aronofsky's best film to date! review: I remember seeing the previews for this movie in theaters, and saying I want to see that, but when the film came out I completely forgot about it. Then the other day I saw it laying on a store shelf at my local DVD store, and I decided to pick it up. Now Darren Aronofsky is in my opinion one of the finest filmmakers out there right now. His works sport unique concepts filled with endless imagination, that you never really find in American films nowadays. Aronofsky got his start doing low budget Indy films; and finally with the Fountain, Aronofsky has the money to just let his imagination run free, and he delivers his best film to date.The story of the Fountain is about one man's search for immortality over the course of a thousand years, resulting in a story that is both about the meaning of life and death.As mentioned the film, which was both written and directed by Aronofsky, is simply amazing. The direction is crisp, the cinematography is a wonder to behold, the score is magnificent sound to go along with the visual splendor, and the acting from this stellar cast is terrific, in particular the performance from Hugh Jackman.The Fountain is simply one of the best films I have seen in a long time, it is heartbreaking and emotional, while also being terrific eye candy; and just like any other film from Darren Aronofsky, you must be willing to go into unexplored territory. If you are wanting a safe movie that follows all of the typical guidelines for drama films, then this isn't for you; but if you want a movie that takes you places dramatically that no other movie has ever dared to go, then you will love the Fountain.Aronofsky has outdone himself here with a true classic for the ages.I give the Fountain a perfect 10 out of 10!

A visual wonder.

tt0414993

Darren Aronofsky's film is a visual wonder which much like Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey leaves you to come to your own conclusions. Hugh Jackman stars as Tom, one man who basically has the same desire across the three periods that the film covers in the film. Rachel Weisz is his lover across all these. The focal point is the middle point which appears to be the reality.The film opens with Tom as a Conquistador preparing for one last battle to get to the Tree of Life at the top of a Mayan Temple. His men abandon him at the last moment when they are ambushed by the Mayans guarding the temple. They are cut down by spears. Tom alone brazenly attacks the Mayans putting up a good fight before being cut down. But he is not killed. They force him to go up the steps of the temple to face their "priest." He slowly approaches the "priest" with a dagger that wasn't stripped from him in the struggle below. It doesn't help him as is stabbed in the stomach and falls to his knees. The film cuts from there as "priest" appears to cut him down with a blazing sword. Tom is now in space, in a bubble, flying through the stars. In the bubble is what appears to be the Tree of Life. He appears to meditating above it, floating. He cares for it and talks to it as if it were a living being, a close companion. He sees what appears to be a vision of Izzi, telling him to finish it. It is here that we cut to what appears to me to be the key point. We jump to the middle point which is modern times, or close to it. Tom is working at a desk and telling Izzi he is working on it. She leaves and just as Tom is going after her, he is called by a lab assistant to work on the patient. It is then revealed that he working on a cure for cancer, experimenting with monkeys. He is working vigorously on this because his wife, Izzi, has cancer and he refuses to lose her. "Death is a disease. There is a cure. And I will find it." This Tom declares.Hugh Jackman offers an amazing performance as Conquistador, doctor, and monk/spaceman in this film which spans centuries, but we are never really sure what is real. I could feel his characters anguish and frustration at not being able to help his wife and his growing obsession with finding the cure to death. Now I am not really sure who everything in the story connected, but I felt the growing point was about our inability to avoid death and that the greatest thing we can have on this earth at least according to this film is love. It is powerfully displayed visually in this film. It is a hard film to describe, but very much worth a viewing on the big screen. The score by Clint Mansell is incredible. The most memorable I have heard all year and the most beautiful. It captures the journey feel of the film.The film is very much a heavy film if you were for its message and visual experience. It isn't a clear cut adventure film, but one which forces you to think. Based around the Biblical Tree of Life described in Genesis, I think it is one of the most original pieces of artistry I have seen in quite sometime, but definitely not for those looking for pure entertainment.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-379

ur12978485

title: A visual wonder. review: Darren Aronofsky's film is a visual wonder which much like Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey leaves you to come to your own conclusions. Hugh Jackman stars as Tom, one man who basically has the same desire across the three periods that the film covers in the film. Rachel Weisz is his lover across all these. The focal point is the middle point which appears to be the reality.The film opens with Tom as a Conquistador preparing for one last battle to get to the Tree of Life at the top of a Mayan Temple. His men abandon him at the last moment when they are ambushed by the Mayans guarding the temple. They are cut down by spears. Tom alone brazenly attacks the Mayans putting up a good fight before being cut down. But he is not killed. They force him to go up the steps of the temple to face their "priest." He slowly approaches the "priest" with a dagger that wasn't stripped from him in the struggle below. It doesn't help him as is stabbed in the stomach and falls to his knees. The film cuts from there as "priest" appears to cut him down with a blazing sword. Tom is now in space, in a bubble, flying through the stars. In the bubble is what appears to be the Tree of Life. He appears to meditating above it, floating. He cares for it and talks to it as if it were a living being, a close companion. He sees what appears to be a vision of Izzi, telling him to finish it. It is here that we cut to what appears to me to be the key point. We jump to the middle point which is modern times, or close to it. Tom is working at a desk and telling Izzi he is working on it. She leaves and just as Tom is going after her, he is called by a lab assistant to work on the patient. It is then revealed that he working on a cure for cancer, experimenting with monkeys. He is working vigorously on this because his wife, Izzi, has cancer and he refuses to lose her. "Death is a disease. There is a cure. And I will find it." This Tom declares.Hugh Jackman offers an amazing performance as Conquistador, doctor, and monk/spaceman in this film which spans centuries, but we are never really sure what is real. I could feel his characters anguish and frustration at not being able to help his wife and his growing obsession with finding the cure to death. Now I am not really sure who everything in the story connected, but I felt the growing point was about our inability to avoid death and that the greatest thing we can have on this earth at least according to this film is love. It is powerfully displayed visually in this film. It is a hard film to describe, but very much worth a viewing on the big screen. The score by Clint Mansell is incredible. The most memorable I have heard all year and the most beautiful. It captures the journey feel of the film.The film is very much a heavy film if you were for its message and visual experience. It isn't a clear cut adventure film, but one which forces you to think. Based around the Biblical Tree of Life described in Genesis, I think it is one of the most original pieces of artistry I have seen in quite sometime, but definitely not for those looking for pure entertainment.

Beautiful and probably one of the best movies of the century

tt0414993

...and here I shall attempt to review what will one day be a classic in the hopefully near future. The Fountain is many things. It's a touching film. It's not long, though, clocking in at around 80 or 90 minutes, but it does manage to pack in enough emotion to out-do every single lame, candy-assed Hollywood romance ever created, or almost. More movies should cut down their running times like this; because there is not a wasted moment in The Fountain from start to finish, despite the movie still moving at an gregariously slow pace. You won't find any blitzed, seizure-inducing cut-and-paste editing scenes here, and there are no epic explosions and battle scenes either. What you will find, though, is an entire treasure trove of realistic passion and jaw-dropping emotion, and that's the strong point of this movie. Nothing here feels contrived or derivative or fake at all - this is a story of a woman with a lot of love in her heart and a passion for life in general, and a man who would do anything to preserve the same love for all eternity. That's the Fountain.The Fountain is a simple movie. While at first it's repertoire of lazily abstract images and slow plot construction may seem intimidating and might even turn off the average moviegoer, a deeper voyage into The Fountain's layers reveals something not hard to comprehend at all. I mean, honestly, this film is a love story at it's core, there are no mind-bending plot twists and secret meanings. It's just a passionate, intricately woven romance about how far a man would go to let his love live on forever. If you're looking for super slick plot twists and drama, then look elsewhere, because The Fountain is not your typical modern flick at all. As I said, average moviegoers probably won't be able to get into this one. It's just too abstract and weird, and I won't blame anyone for disliking it on the basis of it's obvious inaccessibility. But regardless, the shimmering majesty of this movie is evident to those who are willing to try and find it. It's clear after the film sinks in - The Fountain is a straightforward and simple film disguised by multiple layers of artistic refinement and glorious imagery. Oh, it's not all clear cut for you, there is one other sticky point for some people - the fact that The Fountain takes place in three different time-spans all at once, weaving them together into a rich, complex tapestry of master-class storytelling. Yet somehow, despite the winding complexity of it all, The Fountain remains a pretty basic story once you get your head around it's eccentricities. Simplicity and complexity go hand in hand here to create a plethora of beauty and sorrow, a perfect oxymoron.There's a very deep, broad contrast between the beautiful simplicity of the film's plot line and the absolutely jaw-dropping grandeur of the special effects and graphics utilized here. The directing here is through the roof, and the cinematography on display here is probably amongst the five or six best from any movie I've ever seen, if not the very top of the goddamn list. Just watch the last few minutes of the movie, and you'll understand. One of the things I really love about The Fountain is that it's beautiful and touching without trying to be anything it isn't. It's an honest film, and it does everything it wants to do effortlessly and flawlessly, with graceful, sweeping movements that etch a stunning caricature of rich, luscious aesthetics into an otherwise simple story. Marvelous.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-662

ur11053153

title: Beautiful and probably one of the best movies of the century review: ...and here I shall attempt to review what will one day be a classic in the hopefully near future. The Fountain is many things. It's a touching film. It's not long, though, clocking in at around 80 or 90 minutes, but it does manage to pack in enough emotion to out-do every single lame, candy-assed Hollywood romance ever created, or almost. More movies should cut down their running times like this; because there is not a wasted moment in The Fountain from start to finish, despite the movie still moving at an gregariously slow pace. You won't find any blitzed, seizure-inducing cut-and-paste editing scenes here, and there are no epic explosions and battle scenes either. What you will find, though, is an entire treasure trove of realistic passion and jaw-dropping emotion, and that's the strong point of this movie. Nothing here feels contrived or derivative or fake at all - this is a story of a woman with a lot of love in her heart and a passion for life in general, and a man who would do anything to preserve the same love for all eternity. That's the Fountain.The Fountain is a simple movie. While at first it's repertoire of lazily abstract images and slow plot construction may seem intimidating and might even turn off the average moviegoer, a deeper voyage into The Fountain's layers reveals something not hard to comprehend at all. I mean, honestly, this film is a love story at it's core, there are no mind-bending plot twists and secret meanings. It's just a passionate, intricately woven romance about how far a man would go to let his love live on forever. If you're looking for super slick plot twists and drama, then look elsewhere, because The Fountain is not your typical modern flick at all. As I said, average moviegoers probably won't be able to get into this one. It's just too abstract and weird, and I won't blame anyone for disliking it on the basis of it's obvious inaccessibility. But regardless, the shimmering majesty of this movie is evident to those who are willing to try and find it. It's clear after the film sinks in - The Fountain is a straightforward and simple film disguised by multiple layers of artistic refinement and glorious imagery. Oh, it's not all clear cut for you, there is one other sticky point for some people - the fact that The Fountain takes place in three different time-spans all at once, weaving them together into a rich, complex tapestry of master-class storytelling. Yet somehow, despite the winding complexity of it all, The Fountain remains a pretty basic story once you get your head around it's eccentricities. Simplicity and complexity go hand in hand here to create a plethora of beauty and sorrow, a perfect oxymoron.There's a very deep, broad contrast between the beautiful simplicity of the film's plot line and the absolutely jaw-dropping grandeur of the special effects and graphics utilized here. The directing here is through the roof, and the cinematography on display here is probably amongst the five or six best from any movie I've ever seen, if not the very top of the goddamn list. Just watch the last few minutes of the movie, and you'll understand. One of the things I really love about The Fountain is that it's beautiful and touching without trying to be anything it isn't. It's an honest film, and it does everything it wants to do effortlessly and flawlessly, with graceful, sweeping movements that etch a stunning caricature of rich, luscious aesthetics into an otherwise simple story. Marvelous.

The Great Duality Squeezed through a Post-Modern Cake Decorating Kit

tt0414993

The Fountain offers a variety of perspectives on life and death which ring true partly because, like most great spiritual beliefs, they express no specifics nor do they exhaustively explain themselves. In fact, just like many systems of belief that incorporate the notion of spirits and other profoundly affective/effective works of art, the film remains plausible by steadfastly refusing to make perfect and consistent sense in any but an aesthetic and 'gut' manner. Its ambiguity allows you to insert your own personal gods and demons wherever you wish so that you can end up saying that you both "agree with" and "understand" it. Having said all of this - the film resonates strongly with my own beliefs (it will not do so with everybody), and expresses many things which I find attractive. The film can be interpreted as a piece of hardcore areligious psychological rationalism, and a simultaneous and completely complementary celebration of the infinite cycle of life springing from death and visa versa. The Fountain succeeds as a spiritual messenger incorporating ideas from a variety of religious sources (most profoundly Native American concepts) and also achieves the believability of good science fiction film because it carefully ties the parallels between the spiritual (the action of Izzy's book and Tommy's final chapter) and the real (Izzy's death and Tommy's denial about its inevitability). There are essentially two plots, which appear, given the Slaughterhouse-5-like approach to chronology, to be several plots early in the film. The future and the past turn out to be components of a book being written by a surgeon's dying wife and completed by him after her death. The surgeon, from whose perspective we experience the story, must finish the story - a gift from his beloved to allow him to discorporate some of the demons regarding their relationship by formalizing the grieving process through creative expression (Our hero, Tommy is pretty intensely wound up throughout most of the film, and it is obvious that his road to enlightenment will not be the smoothest or straightest one around). The plots are as follows: The Real - sci-fi story about a brilliant surgeon who is trying to invent a cure for death - inspired by his dying wife. This plot is appropriately intense, and not very merciful.The Spiritual/Fantastic - the same individual and his wife playing characters in her novel about a conquistador trying to find the fountain of youth and the tree of life, who later becomes an astronaut willing to sacrifice himself for the rebirth of the universe.All the while, Tommy (Jackman) is beginning to come to grips with his own mortality. Both plots are very carefully thought-out, nicely visualized, and well performed. The connections between them are very nicely paralleled through the narrative, and yet the film does not hold its audience's hands as it wanders through unfamiliar territory, but rather challenges its participants to interpret. The only problem I had with the intertwined story-lines is that the 'real' story was overpopulated with over-dramatic moments, unlikely somewhat forced coincidences and occasional visual and script clichés. The characterizations are all particularly good, and some (particularly Weisz, Jackman and Burstyn) will definitely stick with you after you've seen the film. However, the hyperbolic drama of the 'real' story sometimes makes the lead characters appear to over-act. Visually, the film is an absolute treat, and although it tries to sell itself as an independent art piece, the $35+ million dollar budget shows - in a tasteful and sensually powerful way. The use of sound is nothing special, but doesn't detract from the entertainment value or the ideas. The camera-work is generally good, but I felt that there were perhaps too many gratuitous crying scenes shot with extreme close-ups. Darren Aronofsky has established himself as a force to be reckoned with in mainstream, commercial, artistic film making. I look forward to his on-going growth as a director with enthusiasm.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-594

ur3824745

title: The Great Duality Squeezed through a Post-Modern Cake Decorating Kit review: The Fountain offers a variety of perspectives on life and death which ring true partly because, like most great spiritual beliefs, they express no specifics nor do they exhaustively explain themselves. In fact, just like many systems of belief that incorporate the notion of spirits and other profoundly affective/effective works of art, the film remains plausible by steadfastly refusing to make perfect and consistent sense in any but an aesthetic and 'gut' manner. Its ambiguity allows you to insert your own personal gods and demons wherever you wish so that you can end up saying that you both "agree with" and "understand" it. Having said all of this - the film resonates strongly with my own beliefs (it will not do so with everybody), and expresses many things which I find attractive. The film can be interpreted as a piece of hardcore areligious psychological rationalism, and a simultaneous and completely complementary celebration of the infinite cycle of life springing from death and visa versa. The Fountain succeeds as a spiritual messenger incorporating ideas from a variety of religious sources (most profoundly Native American concepts) and also achieves the believability of good science fiction film because it carefully ties the parallels between the spiritual (the action of Izzy's book and Tommy's final chapter) and the real (Izzy's death and Tommy's denial about its inevitability). There are essentially two plots, which appear, given the Slaughterhouse-5-like approach to chronology, to be several plots early in the film. The future and the past turn out to be components of a book being written by a surgeon's dying wife and completed by him after her death. The surgeon, from whose perspective we experience the story, must finish the story - a gift from his beloved to allow him to discorporate some of the demons regarding their relationship by formalizing the grieving process through creative expression (Our hero, Tommy is pretty intensely wound up throughout most of the film, and it is obvious that his road to enlightenment will not be the smoothest or straightest one around). The plots are as follows: The Real - sci-fi story about a brilliant surgeon who is trying to invent a cure for death - inspired by his dying wife. This plot is appropriately intense, and not very merciful.The Spiritual/Fantastic - the same individual and his wife playing characters in her novel about a conquistador trying to find the fountain of youth and the tree of life, who later becomes an astronaut willing to sacrifice himself for the rebirth of the universe.All the while, Tommy (Jackman) is beginning to come to grips with his own mortality. Both plots are very carefully thought-out, nicely visualized, and well performed. The connections between them are very nicely paralleled through the narrative, and yet the film does not hold its audience's hands as it wanders through unfamiliar territory, but rather challenges its participants to interpret. The only problem I had with the intertwined story-lines is that the 'real' story was overpopulated with over-dramatic moments, unlikely somewhat forced coincidences and occasional visual and script clichés. The characterizations are all particularly good, and some (particularly Weisz, Jackman and Burstyn) will definitely stick with you after you've seen the film. However, the hyperbolic drama of the 'real' story sometimes makes the lead characters appear to over-act. Visually, the film is an absolute treat, and although it tries to sell itself as an independent art piece, the $35+ million dollar budget shows - in a tasteful and sensually powerful way. The use of sound is nothing special, but doesn't detract from the entertainment value or the ideas. The camera-work is generally good, but I felt that there were perhaps too many gratuitous crying scenes shot with extreme close-ups. Darren Aronofsky has established himself as a force to be reckoned with in mainstream, commercial, artistic film making. I look forward to his on-going growth as a director with enthusiasm.

Misleading preview has it as a total different movie

tt0414993

This movie is COMPLETELY different then how the preview portrays the film. The preview makes you believe that this film is about the legendary fountain of youth, the tree of life and back during the Spanish Inquisition days a conquistador finds and an lives on and on... but nooooooooo... First, I pick this film out to watch with other people and this is a film that either you watch alone (first) or you watch with people who have opened minds. I show have known better because it is a film by Darrin Aronosky (directed Pi and Requiem For a Dream, both excellent films). The reason I say you watch with people with open minds, because you have to be ready to watch a film like this. The film is very poetic and surreal. You aren't exactly sure what you are watching. You aren't exactly sure what is real and what isn't real. In fact when its over, there are several different interpretations of what you've seen. The film stars Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. And that is all I am going to say because by telling you what happens, gives away too much and things have to open for you on its on. I will say this, it reminds me of What Dreams May Come, mixed with Jacob's Ladder. Here are some question this film brings up for me. Do you want to live forever? What would you do if you could? How do you let someone go? What would drive you crazy? I gave this film a 7 out of 10 because the film is visually S-T-U-N-N-I-N-G!! And what else I like about the film is that its not obvious and it ABSOLUTELY requires a second view. The first view asks questions, the second view may answer those questions. I like that. Good luck with this one and be ready for something COMPLETELY different.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-601

ur1061970

title: Misleading preview has it as a total different movie review: This movie is COMPLETELY different then how the preview portrays the film. The preview makes you believe that this film is about the legendary fountain of youth, the tree of life and back during the Spanish Inquisition days a conquistador finds and an lives on and on... but nooooooooo... First, I pick this film out to watch with other people and this is a film that either you watch alone (first) or you watch with people who have opened minds. I show have known better because it is a film by Darrin Aronosky (directed Pi and Requiem For a Dream, both excellent films). The reason I say you watch with people with open minds, because you have to be ready to watch a film like this. The film is very poetic and surreal. You aren't exactly sure what you are watching. You aren't exactly sure what is real and what isn't real. In fact when its over, there are several different interpretations of what you've seen. The film stars Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. And that is all I am going to say because by telling you what happens, gives away too much and things have to open for you on its on. I will say this, it reminds me of What Dreams May Come, mixed with Jacob's Ladder. Here are some question this film brings up for me. Do you want to live forever? What would you do if you could? How do you let someone go? What would drive you crazy? I gave this film a 7 out of 10 because the film is visually S-T-U-N-N-I-N-G!! And what else I like about the film is that its not obvious and it ABSOLUTELY requires a second view. The first view asks questions, the second view may answer those questions. I like that. Good luck with this one and be ready for something COMPLETELY different.

unbelievable - is this from the same Darren Aronofsky?

tt0414993

I cannot believe that the gifted, original, strong, promising director who made 'Pi' and Requiem for a Dream' could make this confusing fantasy. After six years of directorial silence Darren Aronofsky is back with a combination of a New Age transcendental story and a Love Story (yes, that one) melodrama of a scientist confronted with the death of his dearest one. A script full of coincidences does not honor the career of Darren Aronofsky as a script writer either. The parallel lives story combines with mystic accents and worst of all, is filmed in a rosy video clip style with effects which seem to have been designed ten years before the last 'Star Wars' movies. Fair acting in the two principal roles cannot save the show. This was a real disappointment for me from a director I was expecting much more and who I still hope can do better in the future.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-758

ur0547823

title: unbelievable - is this from the same Darren Aronofsky? review: I cannot believe that the gifted, original, strong, promising director who made 'Pi' and Requiem for a Dream' could make this confusing fantasy. After six years of directorial silence Darren Aronofsky is back with a combination of a New Age transcendental story and a Love Story (yes, that one) melodrama of a scientist confronted with the death of his dearest one. A script full of coincidences does not honor the career of Darren Aronofsky as a script writer either. The parallel lives story combines with mystic accents and worst of all, is filmed in a rosy video clip style with effects which seem to have been designed ten years before the last 'Star Wars' movies. Fair acting in the two principal roles cannot save the show. This was a real disappointment for me from a director I was expecting much more and who I still hope can do better in the future.

A unique experience

tt0414993

I am a fan of surreal. Yes i am guilty of enjoying things that make little sense and are open to interpretation. I find it a pleasant release from some of the formulaic drivel that comes out of Hollywood from time to time, spoon feeding the audience with endless scenes of exposition just to let them know where they are in the story. But with surrealism, the movie is very much a different experience to those that enjoy watching it. Look at pretty much everything by David Lynch.I am also a huge fan of Darren Aronofski with Requiem For a Dream being the greatest anti drug movie since Trainspotting. Surrealism was a key influence on his debut Pi, so we already know the man i capable of tackling such weirdness.The Fountain is no exception. yes, it is weird, yes, a lot of the time is appears to make little sense and yes, in aims to confront the audience rather than comfort. But this is a totally different surrealism that we witnessed in Pi. This is a different Aronofski all together. And, quite simply, it is one of the finest films of the decade.There have been few cinematic experiences that have made me want to weep with joy but this is one of. The last time i felt so elated was when i watched Magnolia for the first time at 17. I felt so...involved, beside myself with emotion. Sounds cheesy, i know but i couldn't help but be so moved by it. As a friend of mine put it: "you don;t watch the film, you FEEL it". And he couldn't be anymore right.This is a collage of images rather than a concrete narrative structure. Like Dali, Aronofski tells a simple story, that of love and loss, using unconventional means. The result is awe inspiring and made me ask (as i did at the end of Magnolia) why movies are very rarely this good.With a movie of this calibre the performances are incredible yet it's the direction that's the biggest surprise. Gone is the frantic cutting and hectic pace or Aronofski's previous efforts. This movie takes its time, effortlessly so, looking more akin to Kubrick. Patience is required yet the result is all the more rewarding. And it looks beautiful.I understand wholeheartedly why there are those that hate this film but they can't seem to appreciate the majesty of it. I loved it and as soon as i finished watching it i wanted to watch it five times more. I believe each repeated viewing will bring further rewards. It ain't for everyone but then again, it wasn't made for everyone.5/5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-702

ur1902479

title: A unique experience review: I am a fan of surreal. Yes i am guilty of enjoying things that make little sense and are open to interpretation. I find it a pleasant release from some of the formulaic drivel that comes out of Hollywood from time to time, spoon feeding the audience with endless scenes of exposition just to let them know where they are in the story. But with surrealism, the movie is very much a different experience to those that enjoy watching it. Look at pretty much everything by David Lynch.I am also a huge fan of Darren Aronofski with Requiem For a Dream being the greatest anti drug movie since Trainspotting. Surrealism was a key influence on his debut Pi, so we already know the man i capable of tackling such weirdness.The Fountain is no exception. yes, it is weird, yes, a lot of the time is appears to make little sense and yes, in aims to confront the audience rather than comfort. But this is a totally different surrealism that we witnessed in Pi. This is a different Aronofski all together. And, quite simply, it is one of the finest films of the decade.There have been few cinematic experiences that have made me want to weep with joy but this is one of. The last time i felt so elated was when i watched Magnolia for the first time at 17. I felt so...involved, beside myself with emotion. Sounds cheesy, i know but i couldn't help but be so moved by it. As a friend of mine put it: "you don;t watch the film, you FEEL it". And he couldn't be anymore right.This is a collage of images rather than a concrete narrative structure. Like Dali, Aronofski tells a simple story, that of love and loss, using unconventional means. The result is awe inspiring and made me ask (as i did at the end of Magnolia) why movies are very rarely this good.With a movie of this calibre the performances are incredible yet it's the direction that's the biggest surprise. Gone is the frantic cutting and hectic pace or Aronofski's previous efforts. This movie takes its time, effortlessly so, looking more akin to Kubrick. Patience is required yet the result is all the more rewarding. And it looks beautiful.I understand wholeheartedly why there are those that hate this film but they can't seem to appreciate the majesty of it. I loved it and as soon as i finished watching it i wanted to watch it five times more. I believe each repeated viewing will bring further rewards. It ain't for everyone but then again, it wasn't made for everyone.5/5

Wishing You Well

tt0414993

The Fountain is one of those movies so hard to review. Well, okay, for people like me that didn't fully get it. I mean, it's not the easiest thing to admit your ignorance.All the way through this movie, and this is my first time watching it – 5+ years late, it reminded me of a more recent movie, Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life (2011.) In fact, not knowing anything about The Fountain, I thought this movie had Terrence Malick all over it. Not just for the subject matter – both spoke about the actual "tree of life" – but for the art direction, the mysticism and the space/inner-space journeys. But, alas, I was incorrect. The Fountain was Darren Aronofsky's baby.I digress, The Fountain is a beautiful movie and somewhat deep – though, again, I didn't fully understand the message. As the movie progresses, if you can make it that far (I've heard of people all-but immediately stopping it, not giving it a chance), it slowly, but surely reveals the jumps in time-periods. I counted three separate story lines.The Past. Seems like the Dark Ages – but, then, what do I know – and a man's journey to find the Mayan's "secret" Tree of Life, the original one from the Garden of Eden.The Present. A Man and His Dying wife. Here's the tad bit clichéd, but effective story of a doctor (Jackman) doing everything (albeit mad) he can to cure cancer to save his wife who's on her deathbed, pretty much.The Future (??). This part kinda reminded me of a Pixar short. A man (could be that same doctor??) in a snow globe (??) heading into space and into a dying star.That last part might throw off a lot of people. It sure as hell did the trick on me.Unlike the more recent The Tree of Life, mercifully, this is only 90 or so minutes, verses the 139 agonizing minutes of Tree. Also, The Fountain got to the point faster where Tree was all over the place and a minute few walked with a new meaning of life.I'm not sure what the meaning of The Fountain really was…but that's okay. It was entertaining, mesmerizing, had fantastic cinematography and a beautiful score. I just wish I "got" it more.Perhaps the person that recommended it to me could fill me in a bit. Hint, hint.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-924

ur17825945

title: Wishing You Well review: The Fountain is one of those movies so hard to review. Well, okay, for people like me that didn't fully get it. I mean, it's not the easiest thing to admit your ignorance.All the way through this movie, and this is my first time watching it – 5+ years late, it reminded me of a more recent movie, Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life (2011.) In fact, not knowing anything about The Fountain, I thought this movie had Terrence Malick all over it. Not just for the subject matter – both spoke about the actual "tree of life" – but for the art direction, the mysticism and the space/inner-space journeys. But, alas, I was incorrect. The Fountain was Darren Aronofsky's baby.I digress, The Fountain is a beautiful movie and somewhat deep – though, again, I didn't fully understand the message. As the movie progresses, if you can make it that far (I've heard of people all-but immediately stopping it, not giving it a chance), it slowly, but surely reveals the jumps in time-periods. I counted three separate story lines.The Past. Seems like the Dark Ages – but, then, what do I know – and a man's journey to find the Mayan's "secret" Tree of Life, the original one from the Garden of Eden.The Present. A Man and His Dying wife. Here's the tad bit clichéd, but effective story of a doctor (Jackman) doing everything (albeit mad) he can to cure cancer to save his wife who's on her deathbed, pretty much.The Future (??). This part kinda reminded me of a Pixar short. A man (could be that same doctor??) in a snow globe (??) heading into space and into a dying star.That last part might throw off a lot of people. It sure as hell did the trick on me.Unlike the more recent The Tree of Life, mercifully, this is only 90 or so minutes, verses the 139 agonizing minutes of Tree. Also, The Fountain got to the point faster where Tree was all over the place and a minute few walked with a new meaning of life.I'm not sure what the meaning of The Fountain really was…but that's okay. It was entertaining, mesmerizing, had fantastic cinematography and a beautiful score. I just wish I "got" it more.Perhaps the person that recommended it to me could fill me in a bit. Hint, hint.

"The Fountain"

tt0414993

I like to think of myself as a fairly universal film viewer, in that I watch both mainstream and art house films. Personally I don't really like the fact that there is such a thing as art house cinema – films are for everyone, and we should all be given the chance to watch them, whatever their subject matter, country of origin, etc. Thank goodness, then, for DVDs, or else I know I probably would have had to wait a very long time before seeing "The Fountain".This film totally staggered me. I knew I was in for a wild ride in a technological sense, and I wasn't proved wrong. The visual effects, particularly those set in the "future/inner self" segments of the film are awesome to watch and beautiful. But this film has a hell of a lot of emotion in it too, and I wasn't expecting to be taken on a wild ride inwards.I guess it's kind of difficult to work out the exact synopsis – Aronofsky gives the plot just enough ambiguity for everyone to have their own opinion on what exactly is going on. It all revolves around the characters of Tommy and Izzie, played respectively by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. Izzie is sick, dying of a brain tumour, and Tommy has made it his mission to find a cure for it and save her life. Izzie, meanwhile, spends her time writing a manuscript for a novel about a Spanish conquistador who is sent on a seemingly impossible expedition by his love, the Queen of Spain – again, both of these characters played by Jackman and Weisz.This film is a real tour de force for both these actors, and Weisz is fast becoming one of my top five favourite actresses who make films watchable simply because they are in them. Thankfully, this doesn't have to be the case with "The Fountain". Jackman is probably the stand out performance here, however, his character (or characters) going through a wide range of emotions and journeys whose endings, though perhaps are sometimes predictable, are not tedious in their predictability.Several images repeat themselves through the film; for example a ring, skin, and, perhaps most important of all, a tree. Not just any tree, mark you, but the Tree of Life, the perhaps less famous one from the book of genesis in the Bible, the one whose slightly overshadowed by the big bad Tree of Knowledge. If anything, this film made me actually see for the first time what several of the sentences mean in this segment of the biblical text, words that I and I'm sure a lot of others would have simply blanked over.I urge you to see this film. I know it won't be everybody's cup of tea – after all, that's why it's not mainstream. It's intellectual, has a confusing plot line, only has two major stars in it, and it's director's last film was "Requiem For A Dream", another flick which divided film goers and critics alike. But it's also about grief, about love and hope and of acceptance. This would be a great therapy film for those going through a terminal illness, or for those who have recently lost someone in that way. It is a beautiful, beautiful film, and the first chance that you get, please, watch it.9/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-699

ur4405625

title: "The Fountain" review: I like to think of myself as a fairly universal film viewer, in that I watch both mainstream and art house films. Personally I don't really like the fact that there is such a thing as art house cinema – films are for everyone, and we should all be given the chance to watch them, whatever their subject matter, country of origin, etc. Thank goodness, then, for DVDs, or else I know I probably would have had to wait a very long time before seeing "The Fountain".This film totally staggered me. I knew I was in for a wild ride in a technological sense, and I wasn't proved wrong. The visual effects, particularly those set in the "future/inner self" segments of the film are awesome to watch and beautiful. But this film has a hell of a lot of emotion in it too, and I wasn't expecting to be taken on a wild ride inwards.I guess it's kind of difficult to work out the exact synopsis – Aronofsky gives the plot just enough ambiguity for everyone to have their own opinion on what exactly is going on. It all revolves around the characters of Tommy and Izzie, played respectively by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. Izzie is sick, dying of a brain tumour, and Tommy has made it his mission to find a cure for it and save her life. Izzie, meanwhile, spends her time writing a manuscript for a novel about a Spanish conquistador who is sent on a seemingly impossible expedition by his love, the Queen of Spain – again, both of these characters played by Jackman and Weisz.This film is a real tour de force for both these actors, and Weisz is fast becoming one of my top five favourite actresses who make films watchable simply because they are in them. Thankfully, this doesn't have to be the case with "The Fountain". Jackman is probably the stand out performance here, however, his character (or characters) going through a wide range of emotions and journeys whose endings, though perhaps are sometimes predictable, are not tedious in their predictability.Several images repeat themselves through the film; for example a ring, skin, and, perhaps most important of all, a tree. Not just any tree, mark you, but the Tree of Life, the perhaps less famous one from the book of genesis in the Bible, the one whose slightly overshadowed by the big bad Tree of Knowledge. If anything, this film made me actually see for the first time what several of the sentences mean in this segment of the biblical text, words that I and I'm sure a lot of others would have simply blanked over.I urge you to see this film. I know it won't be everybody's cup of tea – after all, that's why it's not mainstream. It's intellectual, has a confusing plot line, only has two major stars in it, and it's director's last film was "Requiem For A Dream", another flick which divided film goers and critics alike. But it's also about grief, about love and hope and of acceptance. This would be a great therapy film for those going through a terminal illness, or for those who have recently lost someone in that way. It is a beautiful, beautiful film, and the first chance that you get, please, watch it.9/10

A unique film experience - Incomparable to any other film you've seen

tt0414993

As I am writing this review I really don't know where to begin. It reminds me of the feeling I had as I left the theatre after the closing credits rolled on the film – absolutely bewildered. I can't even begin to describe the feelings I left the theatre with, but I can safely say that no movie has affected me quite like The Fountain has since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind two years ago (and which is known as my all-time favourite movie). All summaries and attempts to present the plot are futile, because it's truly indescribable. Any summaries you may have read about the plot are null and void – truly, don't judge the film by what it sounds like it will be like. It's a movie you must experience for yourself. And what an experience it is.I find it much simpler to focus on the technical aspects of the film, which are, as expected from director Darren Aronofsky, absolutely incredible. His use of camera angles and movements that repeat themselves throughout the film, such as shots from directly above the action, and extensive use of zoom/dolly outs (an important emulation of the film's message, at least what I perceive it is). The entire colour tone of the film is absolutely gorgeous to observe – a beautiful combination of gold and black colours. Much of the lighting is sharp but in a soft gold colour, which creates a really specific atmosphere. Many scenes in the film take place in a hospital-type setting – the setting you'd normally see in filmed mediums lit with very bright white lighting. Aronofsky lights these scenes with very specific soft golden lights, which place most of the setting in blackness and create an eerie, melancholy atmosphere.Both Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz are absolutely phenomenal in their roles, with Weisz particularly standing out, playing her character with what I can only describe as held-back intensity. It's a performance both of subtlety and of passion at the same time. Extra kudos must be given to Ellen Burstyn who delivers an extremely heartwarming and absolutely brilliant supporting performance.The musical score by Clint Mansell is absolutely, completely and utterly gorgeous. It's minimalist (serves as quite a polar opposite to the profoundness of the film itself) but extremely intense. It is a score that perfectly emulates the feeling, emotions and mood of the film. It's the perfect type of score, and the melody itself is extremely appealing to the ear, with extensive and almost exclusive use of string instruments.And of course, the special effects (and when they appear, they are quite prominent) are nothing short of amazing. Just… amazing. I have nothing more to add, just see it for yourself and be impressed.But really, one finds it difficult to remove ones mind from the spectacle that is the film. The Fountain is, quite simply, unlike ANY other film I have ever seen. The only movie it even only slightly resembles in terms of vagueness and atmosphere is 2001: A Space Odyssey, although The Fountain is only ever so slightly more down to earth. This isn't to say that it's an imitation of Space Odyssey nor that it has similar things to say, but you do get that feeling while watching The Fountain that you are experiencing something incredibly profound. And profound it is. I never stopped thinking about the film since I saw it last Saturday, and I still don't think that I fully understand everything the film has to offer. But it is absolutely loaded with substance ripe for interpretation. I have recently developed a theory regarding SOME of the themes of the film, but there is still much to decipher. What is important to say is that it is the type of film in which every single shot. Every single editing decision, every single is thought out right down to the last little detail, because it is all these little details that combine to create the broader picture, the profound meaning.The Fountain isn't "this year's Eternal Sunshine". It isn't the "next Space Odyssey", although I can assure you, if you enjoyed either of these two films (and preferably both), you should find much The Fountain that will appeal to you. It's a movie that many people will not like, perhaps even hate. But I was profoundly affected by it. See it. Decide for yourself. It's definitely one incredible film experience.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-42

ur3112639

title: A unique film experience - Incomparable to any other film you've seen review: As I am writing this review I really don't know where to begin. It reminds me of the feeling I had as I left the theatre after the closing credits rolled on the film – absolutely bewildered. I can't even begin to describe the feelings I left the theatre with, but I can safely say that no movie has affected me quite like The Fountain has since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind two years ago (and which is known as my all-time favourite movie). All summaries and attempts to present the plot are futile, because it's truly indescribable. Any summaries you may have read about the plot are null and void – truly, don't judge the film by what it sounds like it will be like. It's a movie you must experience for yourself. And what an experience it is.I find it much simpler to focus on the technical aspects of the film, which are, as expected from director Darren Aronofsky, absolutely incredible. His use of camera angles and movements that repeat themselves throughout the film, such as shots from directly above the action, and extensive use of zoom/dolly outs (an important emulation of the film's message, at least what I perceive it is). The entire colour tone of the film is absolutely gorgeous to observe – a beautiful combination of gold and black colours. Much of the lighting is sharp but in a soft gold colour, which creates a really specific atmosphere. Many scenes in the film take place in a hospital-type setting – the setting you'd normally see in filmed mediums lit with very bright white lighting. Aronofsky lights these scenes with very specific soft golden lights, which place most of the setting in blackness and create an eerie, melancholy atmosphere.Both Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz are absolutely phenomenal in their roles, with Weisz particularly standing out, playing her character with what I can only describe as held-back intensity. It's a performance both of subtlety and of passion at the same time. Extra kudos must be given to Ellen Burstyn who delivers an extremely heartwarming and absolutely brilliant supporting performance.The musical score by Clint Mansell is absolutely, completely and utterly gorgeous. It's minimalist (serves as quite a polar opposite to the profoundness of the film itself) but extremely intense. It is a score that perfectly emulates the feeling, emotions and mood of the film. It's the perfect type of score, and the melody itself is extremely appealing to the ear, with extensive and almost exclusive use of string instruments.And of course, the special effects (and when they appear, they are quite prominent) are nothing short of amazing. Just… amazing. I have nothing more to add, just see it for yourself and be impressed.But really, one finds it difficult to remove ones mind from the spectacle that is the film. The Fountain is, quite simply, unlike ANY other film I have ever seen. The only movie it even only slightly resembles in terms of vagueness and atmosphere is 2001: A Space Odyssey, although The Fountain is only ever so slightly more down to earth. This isn't to say that it's an imitation of Space Odyssey nor that it has similar things to say, but you do get that feeling while watching The Fountain that you are experiencing something incredibly profound. And profound it is. I never stopped thinking about the film since I saw it last Saturday, and I still don't think that I fully understand everything the film has to offer. But it is absolutely loaded with substance ripe for interpretation. I have recently developed a theory regarding SOME of the themes of the film, but there is still much to decipher. What is important to say is that it is the type of film in which every single shot. Every single editing decision, every single is thought out right down to the last little detail, because it is all these little details that combine to create the broader picture, the profound meaning.The Fountain isn't "this year's Eternal Sunshine". It isn't the "next Space Odyssey", although I can assure you, if you enjoyed either of these two films (and preferably both), you should find much The Fountain that will appeal to you. It's a movie that many people will not like, perhaps even hate. But I was profoundly affected by it. See it. Decide for yourself. It's definitely one incredible film experience.

Too much water in the Fountain

tt0414993

The Fountain Symbolism, metaphors, more symbolism, and more metaphors can't even begin to encompass Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain. Aronofsky helms the picture as if he were Pablo Picasso constructing his most personal portrait to date. Unfortunately, the director does not make things clear enough for the viewer and it took several conversations with a friend following the film to even grasp any concept of what this film was "suppose" to be about. Aronofsky's heart is in the right place and it's very probable personal experience fueled his hand into writing this intimate portrayal of love and death, both lost and found.Trying to give a synopsis of the film is like trying to give the explanation of heaven and God. Spanning over a thousand years, the film tells three intertwined tales of love and our fragility of life in this world and the inevitable confrontation of it. Technically this film is an achievement on its own. Visually stunning from start to finish, the eclectic director who doesn't fail to surprise viewers or tap into something we haven't felt before like his previous works Requiem for a Dream and Pi; the film becomes so incredibly frustrating but at the end leaves you gasping for breath with its cunning, yet overwhelming finale.In 1500 AD Hugh Jackman portrays Tomas, a conquistador searching for the tree of life that God banished from the world in order to live forever with his Queen Isabel played by Rachel Weisz. In 2000, Jackman plays Tom Creo; a medical researcher whom is exceptionally gifted yet cannot seem to handle to concept of losing his very ailing wife, Izzy. Izzy is very charismatic and wise in her thoughts and words and has begun writing a personal symbolic fable to her husband. In 2500, a very cosmic and Yoga-like time to say the least, Jackman is some type of being standing by a tree having several visions of Izzy and talking repeatedly to the tree.Hugh Jackman gives his most impressive and broken performance to date. With his inner conflict and slow and steady realization of losing his wife, he shows us "Wolverine" has more talent than ever anticipated. He delivers us three authentic and genuine characters whose tortured souls are evident in their actions. Rachel Weisz is restricted and reserved in her portrayal of the two women Izzy and Isabel. As Queen Isabel she exudes the grace of any Spanish Queen in the 15th century, although how Aronofsky allowed her to keep her British accent but is a Spanish Queen is beyond me. In present time, her American accent is on point and she has the same on-screen presence that carries Kate Winslet in her films. Critics and average viewers are constantly comparing the two but they are two of our finest actors working today that resemble each other in structure and performance.The idea that Aronofsky presented to the viewer was a thought provoking one, but not everyone will "get" nor appreciate the picture. The visual spectacles are a marvel but the carry through wasn't smooth rather than being dragged through a thorn bush, screaming "leave me alone, I don't want to know that badly." The best parts of the film are Clint Mansell's potent score that always adds to the aura of Aronofsky's films. The cinematography is authentic and unique in pulling us through but leaves a rather dizziness in the system. And of course, Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz seem perfect for their roles. The screenplay however lacks very poor character development and not giving us enough background to fall in love with the couples. The director keeps us at a distance and doesn't invite us into their devotion to one another. The Oscar-Crystal ball tells this critic that some technical nominations may be in order but none other with the critics entirely split down the middle. You will either hate The Fountain or want to drink from it until your pores seep of love.Grade: **1/2/****

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-242

ur2898980

title: Too much water in the Fountain review: The Fountain Symbolism, metaphors, more symbolism, and more metaphors can't even begin to encompass Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain. Aronofsky helms the picture as if he were Pablo Picasso constructing his most personal portrait to date. Unfortunately, the director does not make things clear enough for the viewer and it took several conversations with a friend following the film to even grasp any concept of what this film was "suppose" to be about. Aronofsky's heart is in the right place and it's very probable personal experience fueled his hand into writing this intimate portrayal of love and death, both lost and found.Trying to give a synopsis of the film is like trying to give the explanation of heaven and God. Spanning over a thousand years, the film tells three intertwined tales of love and our fragility of life in this world and the inevitable confrontation of it. Technically this film is an achievement on its own. Visually stunning from start to finish, the eclectic director who doesn't fail to surprise viewers or tap into something we haven't felt before like his previous works Requiem for a Dream and Pi; the film becomes so incredibly frustrating but at the end leaves you gasping for breath with its cunning, yet overwhelming finale.In 1500 AD Hugh Jackman portrays Tomas, a conquistador searching for the tree of life that God banished from the world in order to live forever with his Queen Isabel played by Rachel Weisz. In 2000, Jackman plays Tom Creo; a medical researcher whom is exceptionally gifted yet cannot seem to handle to concept of losing his very ailing wife, Izzy. Izzy is very charismatic and wise in her thoughts and words and has begun writing a personal symbolic fable to her husband. In 2500, a very cosmic and Yoga-like time to say the least, Jackman is some type of being standing by a tree having several visions of Izzy and talking repeatedly to the tree.Hugh Jackman gives his most impressive and broken performance to date. With his inner conflict and slow and steady realization of losing his wife, he shows us "Wolverine" has more talent than ever anticipated. He delivers us three authentic and genuine characters whose tortured souls are evident in their actions. Rachel Weisz is restricted and reserved in her portrayal of the two women Izzy and Isabel. As Queen Isabel she exudes the grace of any Spanish Queen in the 15th century, although how Aronofsky allowed her to keep her British accent but is a Spanish Queen is beyond me. In present time, her American accent is on point and she has the same on-screen presence that carries Kate Winslet in her films. Critics and average viewers are constantly comparing the two but they are two of our finest actors working today that resemble each other in structure and performance.The idea that Aronofsky presented to the viewer was a thought provoking one, but not everyone will "get" nor appreciate the picture. The visual spectacles are a marvel but the carry through wasn't smooth rather than being dragged through a thorn bush, screaming "leave me alone, I don't want to know that badly." The best parts of the film are Clint Mansell's potent score that always adds to the aura of Aronofsky's films. The cinematography is authentic and unique in pulling us through but leaves a rather dizziness in the system. And of course, Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz seem perfect for their roles. The screenplay however lacks very poor character development and not giving us enough background to fall in love with the couples. The director keeps us at a distance and doesn't invite us into their devotion to one another. The Oscar-Crystal ball tells this critic that some technical nominations may be in order but none other with the critics entirely split down the middle. You will either hate The Fountain or want to drink from it until your pores seep of love.Grade: **1/2/****

Be patient with this movie and please think about it

tt0414993

When I set to write something about this movie I had only one dilemma; is it going to be short or massive comment. I decided to be as short as I can, cause words can hardly describe what I feel. Maybe just one word: unique. Unique on many levels; writing ,acting, music... Sound background fits perfectly in this story telling and the acting of Hugh Jackman & Rachel Weisz is amazing. I knew that Weisz is good actress, but this is movie where Jackman became a real actor. This is so heavy role and Jackman done it nearly with perfection. Something about the script; movie follows three stories. Each one from the past, present, and future - conquistador in Mayan country searches for the tree of life to free his captive queen; medical researcher, working with various trees, looks for a cure that will save his dying wife; a space traveler, traveling with an aged tree encapsulated within a bubble. My understandings (don't read any more if you haven't watched it): The only story that is really happening is the one that takes place in present. Story from the future presents Tommy and that tree. Probably you've all realized that Izzi is actually that tree, cause when she dies, tree dies too. Story from the past is search for eternal life, actually Tommy's search for cure that would save Izzi. At the end Tommy dies in future and past. In future to bring life to that tree that presents his everlasting love to Izzi and in past where he dies and fails to save Spain and live happily ever after with Queen (Izzi). In the present Izzi couldn't be saved but the whole story leaves us bright hope that Tommy will find cure and he says: "Death is a disease, it's like any other. And there's a cure. A cure - and I will find it." At the end, this is a big comment. Sorry, I got carried away. But I didn't changed my mind regarding this movie. Really superb piece of art that will have negative reviews only from those who couldn't understand this beautiful movie or from those who simply don't want to use brain to interpret this story.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-741

ur14795108

title: Be patient with this movie and please think about it review: When I set to write something about this movie I had only one dilemma; is it going to be short or massive comment. I decided to be as short as I can, cause words can hardly describe what I feel. Maybe just one word: unique. Unique on many levels; writing ,acting, music... Sound background fits perfectly in this story telling and the acting of Hugh Jackman & Rachel Weisz is amazing. I knew that Weisz is good actress, but this is movie where Jackman became a real actor. This is so heavy role and Jackman done it nearly with perfection. Something about the script; movie follows three stories. Each one from the past, present, and future - conquistador in Mayan country searches for the tree of life to free his captive queen; medical researcher, working with various trees, looks for a cure that will save his dying wife; a space traveler, traveling with an aged tree encapsulated within a bubble. My understandings (don't read any more if you haven't watched it): The only story that is really happening is the one that takes place in present. Story from the future presents Tommy and that tree. Probably you've all realized that Izzi is actually that tree, cause when she dies, tree dies too. Story from the past is search for eternal life, actually Tommy's search for cure that would save Izzi. At the end Tommy dies in future and past. In future to bring life to that tree that presents his everlasting love to Izzi and in past where he dies and fails to save Spain and live happily ever after with Queen (Izzi). In the present Izzi couldn't be saved but the whole story leaves us bright hope that Tommy will find cure and he says: "Death is a disease, it's like any other. And there's a cure. A cure - and I will find it." At the end, this is a big comment. Sorry, I got carried away. But I didn't changed my mind regarding this movie. Really superb piece of art that will have negative reviews only from those who couldn't understand this beautiful movie or from those who simply don't want to use brain to interpret this story.

Leaky FOUNTAIN

tt0414993

THE FOUNTAIN Written and Directed by Darren AronofskyTHE FOUNTAIN reinvigorates the meaning of "labour of love." Writer/Director Darren Aronofsky's ambitious offering had many eyes on it from the moment of its conception, through its disastrous pre-production period and even more so now as it finally unrolls into theatres. When his last film, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, struck many a chord amongst many a different viewer (it is a compelling plea to not use drugs as many people watch the film high and never want to touch the stuff again), people knew they had a young genius in Aronofsky. Naturally, Hollywood wanted him all to itself. The problem is that Aronofsky is anything but Hollywood. When THE FOUNTAIN got the green light from a major Hollywood studio, conditional to Brad Pitt's attachment to the project, Aronofsky found himself in a new world. In this world, budgets blow up to $75 million, stars back out, funding disappears and you can spend $20 million without shooting a single frame. When THE FOUNTAIN was shut down, Aronofsky would not let go. This is the film his heart wanted to make and so he scaled the budget down to $35 million and found a new cast and new funding. Somehow though, while everyone scrambled to get THE FOUNTAIN made, no one seemed to notice what a hard sell it was going to be. Aronofsky attempts to show in an hour and a half that we as humans are not of our bodies but that the soul, life and love are eternal; that the death of our physical bodies is both a natural and necessary part of what we know as life; that we should neither fear it nor fight it but accept it as peacefully as possible. He attempts to tell this by stretching his story over a thousand years. Though the vastness of his ideas lose some focus around the edges and struggle to remain congealed, THE FOUNTAIN remains incredibly beautiful with piercing performances by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz that plant the seeds necessary for Aronofsky's ethereal ideas to grow in the souls of his audience. Despite all the love given, the roots could have still used a little more water.Jackman and Weisz play Tom and Izzi Creo in the year 2000. Izzi has an inoperable tumor in her brain and not much time left on earth. Tom is a scientist, a rational man who believes that death is no more than another disease that can one day be cured. As Tom tries to play God, Izzi embraces that she will soon meet God. Jackman plays Tom as tortured and desperate and his performance is in direct conflict with Weisz's embodiment of Izzi as a creative beacon of repose and understanding. Yet they still manage to share a life together, one that is clearly based on a deep and engrossing love that binds them, thanks to a tender, caring chemistry between Jackman and Wiesz. The present day chemistry needs to be solid in order for the bookending to fall into place. 500 years later, Tom finds himself traveling through space towards a dying star in order have that life that is fading be reborn in the tree of life he is traveling with. 500 years earlier, Tom finds himself searching for the tree of life in order to give himself and his queen (an earlier incarnation of Izzi) eternal life. It is in these two extremes that Aronofsky exhibits his strengths and weaknesses. The future scenes are organic and spiritual making his quest seem plausible in an other-worldly fashion but the past sequences, told as a story and not confirmed as an actual past life, seem stagy and forced. Aronofsky's ambition opens minds to new possibilities but it also takes on too much. A common thread was obviously necessary to tie three story elements that span a thousand years but he focuses on two threads instead, causing a struggle. Tom and Izzi's love anchors the center story but though Izzi is present in the past and future, their love is not the central issue. There is an expectation that it would be more prominent that is never fulfilled. Instead, what Tom cannot deal with in the central story becomes the focus in the later and prior. No matter when, Tom is always seeking the key to eternal life. Death brings about rebirth and Tom must spend a thousand years trying to figure that out. It is ultimately Tom's journey but Izzi is so compelling that she draws attention away from him. Despite this, the timelessness of his quest shows how fighting against death is an unnatural exertion that limits potential when one is fortunate enough to be alive that can also only reach its true potential by crossing through death.There is no dispute that Aronofsky is a genuine artist and genius in his own right. THE FOUNTAIN shows his insight, his openness and his innovation. How else can one describe the usage of chemical reactions in a Petri dish shot with a microphotography camera as the backdrop for the future scenes? The technique is even intrinsically linked to the themes of the film. Obviously the scientific approach is an extension of Tom's profession but the approach was also chosen to give the film a timeless feel and avoid the dating that can sometimes happen with CGI. But for all its ingenuity, THE FOUNTAIN never feels like it has fully translated from Aronofsky's complex mind to the screen. That being said, there are worse places to be trapped than the mind of a genius.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-278

ur1982210

title: Leaky FOUNTAIN review: THE FOUNTAIN Written and Directed by Darren AronofskyTHE FOUNTAIN reinvigorates the meaning of "labour of love." Writer/Director Darren Aronofsky's ambitious offering had many eyes on it from the moment of its conception, through its disastrous pre-production period and even more so now as it finally unrolls into theatres. When his last film, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, struck many a chord amongst many a different viewer (it is a compelling plea to not use drugs as many people watch the film high and never want to touch the stuff again), people knew they had a young genius in Aronofsky. Naturally, Hollywood wanted him all to itself. The problem is that Aronofsky is anything but Hollywood. When THE FOUNTAIN got the green light from a major Hollywood studio, conditional to Brad Pitt's attachment to the project, Aronofsky found himself in a new world. In this world, budgets blow up to $75 million, stars back out, funding disappears and you can spend $20 million without shooting a single frame. When THE FOUNTAIN was shut down, Aronofsky would not let go. This is the film his heart wanted to make and so he scaled the budget down to $35 million and found a new cast and new funding. Somehow though, while everyone scrambled to get THE FOUNTAIN made, no one seemed to notice what a hard sell it was going to be. Aronofsky attempts to show in an hour and a half that we as humans are not of our bodies but that the soul, life and love are eternal; that the death of our physical bodies is both a natural and necessary part of what we know as life; that we should neither fear it nor fight it but accept it as peacefully as possible. He attempts to tell this by stretching his story over a thousand years. Though the vastness of his ideas lose some focus around the edges and struggle to remain congealed, THE FOUNTAIN remains incredibly beautiful with piercing performances by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz that plant the seeds necessary for Aronofsky's ethereal ideas to grow in the souls of his audience. Despite all the love given, the roots could have still used a little more water.Jackman and Weisz play Tom and Izzi Creo in the year 2000. Izzi has an inoperable tumor in her brain and not much time left on earth. Tom is a scientist, a rational man who believes that death is no more than another disease that can one day be cured. As Tom tries to play God, Izzi embraces that she will soon meet God. Jackman plays Tom as tortured and desperate and his performance is in direct conflict with Weisz's embodiment of Izzi as a creative beacon of repose and understanding. Yet they still manage to share a life together, one that is clearly based on a deep and engrossing love that binds them, thanks to a tender, caring chemistry between Jackman and Wiesz. The present day chemistry needs to be solid in order for the bookending to fall into place. 500 years later, Tom finds himself traveling through space towards a dying star in order have that life that is fading be reborn in the tree of life he is traveling with. 500 years earlier, Tom finds himself searching for the tree of life in order to give himself and his queen (an earlier incarnation of Izzi) eternal life. It is in these two extremes that Aronofsky exhibits his strengths and weaknesses. The future scenes are organic and spiritual making his quest seem plausible in an other-worldly fashion but the past sequences, told as a story and not confirmed as an actual past life, seem stagy and forced. Aronofsky's ambition opens minds to new possibilities but it also takes on too much. A common thread was obviously necessary to tie three story elements that span a thousand years but he focuses on two threads instead, causing a struggle. Tom and Izzi's love anchors the center story but though Izzi is present in the past and future, their love is not the central issue. There is an expectation that it would be more prominent that is never fulfilled. Instead, what Tom cannot deal with in the central story becomes the focus in the later and prior. No matter when, Tom is always seeking the key to eternal life. Death brings about rebirth and Tom must spend a thousand years trying to figure that out. It is ultimately Tom's journey but Izzi is so compelling that she draws attention away from him. Despite this, the timelessness of his quest shows how fighting against death is an unnatural exertion that limits potential when one is fortunate enough to be alive that can also only reach its true potential by crossing through death.There is no dispute that Aronofsky is a genuine artist and genius in his own right. THE FOUNTAIN shows his insight, his openness and his innovation. How else can one describe the usage of chemical reactions in a Petri dish shot with a microphotography camera as the backdrop for the future scenes? The technique is even intrinsically linked to the themes of the film. Obviously the scientific approach is an extension of Tom's profession but the approach was also chosen to give the film a timeless feel and avoid the dating that can sometimes happen with CGI. But for all its ingenuity, THE FOUNTAIN never feels like it has fully translated from Aronofsky's complex mind to the screen. That being said, there are worse places to be trapped than the mind of a genius.

Doubtin' The Fountain

tt0414993

Raving beauty, rabid camera angling and startlingly somber performances almost save this movie from its own convoluted and ambitious storyline.The trailers for *The Fountain* were extremely well done and conveyed the hero (Hugh Jackman) as traveling through time, pursuing his true love across the ages (Rachel Weisz) – then I watched the movie… and I lost track of which flash-forward was which time-backward in the first flash-sideways… so I read Roger Ebert's review for a smidgen of probable comprehension and apparently, the movie is about ONE time-frame with two other "fantasies" piggybacking off the reality of the main story….Er… then, uh… Sigh.If my description confuses you – wait till you see the movie.Written by Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel, and directed by Aronofsky, the "realistic" thread is the story of a scientist (Jackman) trying desperately to discover a cure for the necrotic effects of a brain tumor on his wife (Weisz). While she dies daily before his eyes, he loses his own health and sleep experimenting on apes.Weisz keeps a diary concerning some mythical Fountain of Youth, which Jackman's other characters pursue in other realities. I'm sure that the metaphors of the "imaginary" realities are profound, but it will require more than one viewing and probably about ten viewings of the "Making Of" reel to untangle those metaphors. The three "realities" are linked by the two main protagonists appearing as various characters in those realities; Jackman as a conquistador, Weisz as a Spanish queen, Jackman as a shaved-headed recluse in a space-bubble – wha-? I'm telling ya, this thing is WEIRD with a capital D.It would be easy to dismiss *The Fountain* as a failure, but then we are haunted by the fact that in misunderstanding Aronofsky's vision or depth, we'll be called ersatz reviewers and never be invited to another *Spiderman* screening. Reviewer James Berardinelli hits the perfect note in describing the film thusly: "There's little doubt this is an ambitious effort, but one can argue that Aronofsky's vision has exceeded his ability to bring it to the screen within the allotted running time." This cucumber concurs, Mr. Berardinelli.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-749

ur2446936

title: Doubtin' The Fountain review: Raving beauty, rabid camera angling and startlingly somber performances almost save this movie from its own convoluted and ambitious storyline.The trailers for *The Fountain* were extremely well done and conveyed the hero (Hugh Jackman) as traveling through time, pursuing his true love across the ages (Rachel Weisz) – then I watched the movie… and I lost track of which flash-forward was which time-backward in the first flash-sideways… so I read Roger Ebert's review for a smidgen of probable comprehension and apparently, the movie is about ONE time-frame with two other "fantasies" piggybacking off the reality of the main story….Er… then, uh… Sigh.If my description confuses you – wait till you see the movie.Written by Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel, and directed by Aronofsky, the "realistic" thread is the story of a scientist (Jackman) trying desperately to discover a cure for the necrotic effects of a brain tumor on his wife (Weisz). While she dies daily before his eyes, he loses his own health and sleep experimenting on apes.Weisz keeps a diary concerning some mythical Fountain of Youth, which Jackman's other characters pursue in other realities. I'm sure that the metaphors of the "imaginary" realities are profound, but it will require more than one viewing and probably about ten viewings of the "Making Of" reel to untangle those metaphors. The three "realities" are linked by the two main protagonists appearing as various characters in those realities; Jackman as a conquistador, Weisz as a Spanish queen, Jackman as a shaved-headed recluse in a space-bubble – wha-? I'm telling ya, this thing is WEIRD with a capital D.It would be easy to dismiss *The Fountain* as a failure, but then we are haunted by the fact that in misunderstanding Aronofsky's vision or depth, we'll be called ersatz reviewers and never be invited to another *Spiderman* screening. Reviewer James Berardinelli hits the perfect note in describing the film thusly: "There's little doubt this is an ambitious effort, but one can argue that Aronofsky's vision has exceeded his ability to bring it to the screen within the allotted running time." This cucumber concurs, Mr. Berardinelli.

Style and substance combined to make an experience like nothing seen in a long time

tt0414993

The greatest filmmakers don't repeat themselves. With each new project they give us something totally different than what they did before. They challenge us in new ways, which keeps us watching. This is a sign of a true artist who loves what they do and cares about the outcome. A lot of directors just make a few movies a year without taking the time to create something really memorable. Darren Aronofsky on the other hand does take the type to develop each new feature. This one came six years after 'Requiem For a Dream,' a film that struck a nerve and became a favorite of critics and movie lovers alike. When going into 'The Fountain' it's best to expect the unexpected, because this is a whole other experience and in no way a repeat.Pros: Amazing work by the cast, plus solid chemistry between the two leads. A story that's both moving and heartbreaking. Intelligently written and directed. Beautifully scored. Striking imagery. Plus all the visual effects are well done. Slow, steady pace. Both the production and costume designs are masterfully done. Stunningly photographed. Full of great ideas.Cons: One of those films you need to watch more than once to get it all.Final thoughts: From 'Pi,' to 'Requiem,' to this Darren Aronofsky has proved himself a force in the industry. Sure there are a lot of things pleasing to the eyes here, but there's also no shortage of substance. A blend of Drama, Romance, Fantasy, and maybe even a bit of Science Fiction that works better than you may expect. Every period has it's great directors who make unforgettable films, and Aronofsky has earned his place on that list.My rating: 5/5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-877

ur4597795

title: Style and substance combined to make an experience like nothing seen in a long time review: The greatest filmmakers don't repeat themselves. With each new project they give us something totally different than what they did before. They challenge us in new ways, which keeps us watching. This is a sign of a true artist who loves what they do and cares about the outcome. A lot of directors just make a few movies a year without taking the time to create something really memorable. Darren Aronofsky on the other hand does take the type to develop each new feature. This one came six years after 'Requiem For a Dream,' a film that struck a nerve and became a favorite of critics and movie lovers alike. When going into 'The Fountain' it's best to expect the unexpected, because this is a whole other experience and in no way a repeat.Pros: Amazing work by the cast, plus solid chemistry between the two leads. A story that's both moving and heartbreaking. Intelligently written and directed. Beautifully scored. Striking imagery. Plus all the visual effects are well done. Slow, steady pace. Both the production and costume designs are masterfully done. Stunningly photographed. Full of great ideas.Cons: One of those films you need to watch more than once to get it all.Final thoughts: From 'Pi,' to 'Requiem,' to this Darren Aronofsky has proved himself a force in the industry. Sure there are a lot of things pleasing to the eyes here, but there's also no shortage of substance. A blend of Drama, Romance, Fantasy, and maybe even a bit of Science Fiction that works better than you may expect. Every period has it's great directors who make unforgettable films, and Aronofsky has earned his place on that list.My rating: 5/5

What If You Could Live Forever?

tt0414993

Three stories - one each from the past, present, and future - about men in pursuit of eternity with their love. A conquistador in Mayan country searches for the tree of life to free his captive queen; a medical researcher, working with various trees, looks for a cure that will save his dying wife; a space traveler, traveling with an aged tree encapsulated within a bubble, moves toward a dying star that's wrapped in a nebula; he seeks eternity with his love. The stories intersect and parallel; the quests fail and succeed.Seeing how extremely similar (in the execution; not the story) this film is to "Blade Runner, "2001: A Space Odyssey," and "Solaris," I'm not surprised I didn't like the film. Basically, if you don't like the movies I've mentioned, you won't like this film. If you do, you'll absolutely love this film.The trailer for this movie interested me. When I saw the movie, it was like an art film. I'm sorry but I don't like films that try to be art in movies. After awhile, I got lost track from the story because it was just too confusing and boring for my taste. But for every person who hates this movie, there are people who loved it.With that said, this film polarized audiences. I don't think you can rate an art film but I'll just give it a 5/10 to be fair. I didn't quite like the chemistry between Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz at all. However, the film is quite beautiful and visually extensive. In the end, though, you might hate it or love it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-766

ur8334868

title: What If You Could Live Forever? review: Three stories - one each from the past, present, and future - about men in pursuit of eternity with their love. A conquistador in Mayan country searches for the tree of life to free his captive queen; a medical researcher, working with various trees, looks for a cure that will save his dying wife; a space traveler, traveling with an aged tree encapsulated within a bubble, moves toward a dying star that's wrapped in a nebula; he seeks eternity with his love. The stories intersect and parallel; the quests fail and succeed.Seeing how extremely similar (in the execution; not the story) this film is to "Blade Runner, "2001: A Space Odyssey," and "Solaris," I'm not surprised I didn't like the film. Basically, if you don't like the movies I've mentioned, you won't like this film. If you do, you'll absolutely love this film.The trailer for this movie interested me. When I saw the movie, it was like an art film. I'm sorry but I don't like films that try to be art in movies. After awhile, I got lost track from the story because it was just too confusing and boring for my taste. But for every person who hates this movie, there are people who loved it.With that said, this film polarized audiences. I don't think you can rate an art film but I'll just give it a 5/10 to be fair. I didn't quite like the chemistry between Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz at all. However, the film is quite beautiful and visually extensive. In the end, though, you might hate it or love it.

Brilliant visuals, confusing story lines

tt0414993

I hadn't really heard too much about The Fountain - it directed by Aronofsky, the man who did Requiem for a Dream, it was set in the past, present and future somehow, had to do with eternal life, etc. So I guessed I didn't really have much of an idea about the movie. I was right about that.The main plot revolves around Tom (Hugh Jackman), a genetic scientist who is trying to perfect a cure for brain tumours, all while dealing with his terminally ill wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz). The movie often follows two different plots that tie in with the main one - a story-within-a-story about a medieval conquistador (also Jackman) searching for the mythical "tree of life" in South America, and Tom's future, where he lives inside a ball with a tree as it hurtles through outer space. Something like that.It's even harder to wrap your head around the plot when it happens on screen. I'll be honest here, I spent a fairly good portion of the movie wondering what exactly was real and what wasn't. Since I review movies after one viewing, I probably missed a fair bit. This film could use several viewings.That's a small error to worry about when you're watching everything that's going on. On the whole, any moment in The Fountain is a powerful one. Everything comes together perfectly - sight, sound, emotions. If anything really stood out about this film, it was the general look of the film. Visually, The Fountain is quite simply eye-boggling. The final 20 minutes alone are jaw-dropping in their intensity.The Fountain was one hell of a movie to watch. Between the convoluted, thought-provoking plot line(s) and the film's aesthetics, you're in for more than just a movie - you're in for an experience.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-701

ur3595861

title: Brilliant visuals, confusing story lines review: I hadn't really heard too much about The Fountain - it directed by Aronofsky, the man who did Requiem for a Dream, it was set in the past, present and future somehow, had to do with eternal life, etc. So I guessed I didn't really have much of an idea about the movie. I was right about that.The main plot revolves around Tom (Hugh Jackman), a genetic scientist who is trying to perfect a cure for brain tumours, all while dealing with his terminally ill wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz). The movie often follows two different plots that tie in with the main one - a story-within-a-story about a medieval conquistador (also Jackman) searching for the mythical "tree of life" in South America, and Tom's future, where he lives inside a ball with a tree as it hurtles through outer space. Something like that.It's even harder to wrap your head around the plot when it happens on screen. I'll be honest here, I spent a fairly good portion of the movie wondering what exactly was real and what wasn't. Since I review movies after one viewing, I probably missed a fair bit. This film could use several viewings.That's a small error to worry about when you're watching everything that's going on. On the whole, any moment in The Fountain is a powerful one. Everything comes together perfectly - sight, sound, emotions. If anything really stood out about this film, it was the general look of the film. Visually, The Fountain is quite simply eye-boggling. The final 20 minutes alone are jaw-dropping in their intensity.The Fountain was one hell of a movie to watch. Between the convoluted, thought-provoking plot line(s) and the film's aesthetics, you're in for more than just a movie - you're in for an experience.

Visually astounding, but far too flawed to be looked at as anything more

tt0414993

After seeing the brilliance he delivered in Requiem for a Dream last summer, I was up for anything Darren Aronofsky had to offer. I never had a chance to view his first film, Pi, but I did want to make a point of seeing The Fountain as soon as I could. And despite the heavily negative reviews I read, I figured it had to be somewhat worthwhile.So as anyone who has read anything on this film can tell you, The Fountain cycles through a thousand year cycle of a man named Tom (Hugh Jackman), and the love of his life, Isabel (Rachel Weisz), and his search for everlasting life. In 1500, he is a Spanish conquistador, searching for a tree that will keep his queen alive forever. In 2000, he is a lab scientist trying to find a cure for his ailing wife. In 2500, he is a cosmonaut, traveling through space with a tree, haunted by old memories.While the film is undeniably unique and original, it often played itself out to look like a movie that was originally envisioned to be so much grander. It really does feel like Aronofsky made a compromise and took out the real lavishness of the film, and just left the bare bones. Not that the powerful and deep seated core of the movie is not there, it just feels like that is it, and nothing more.While this would not usually sound like a bad thing, it proves to be one here. Whole sequences go on for minutes at a time, and they just point to something that is either not there, or not worthy of retrieving. Every moment in the film is interconnected (hence why some are overplayed quite annoyingly), but every moment does not feel like it is needed. It just turns boring really quickly, and leads to a lot of eye-rolling as the movie barrels on. And for a movie that is just over ninety minutes, that just does not work. While editing probably would not have solved this, more coherency in these redundant sequences probably would have helped.And while the film is fairly easy to follow at first (despite the jumpiness between time periods and its numerous allusions to everything from the bible to medieval times), it completely turns itself on its own head during its denouement. I expected my mind to get screwed with, but it just did not seem to make a whole total whack of sense the way Aronofsky did it. It seemed more like he wanted to play out every idea he has, and just throw it at the audience all at once and yell "Gotcha!" My mind hurts even now, just attempting to comprehend the ultimate point of The Fountain. Was it all an exercise to toy with me, or did Aronofsky genuinely believe he delivered the film he set out to originally? If the whole film did anything for me, it is the fact that I am now curious to see what the original vision was, and if it was just as buggy as this one.What the film also loses in a lot of cases is emotion from the cast. The entire supporting cast looks like they are either watching a train wreck or just seem completely confused at why they are even there throughout the entirety of the film. None of them are particularly notable, and most are seen for fleeting minutes, if at all (and the majority are only used in the events that take place in 2000).Jackman seems like he is really trying, but only makes it work half the time. You can see the pain in his face and in his actions, but when brilliant ideas that make the film progress occur, he just does not seem too phased by what has hit him. He looks just like the script reader told him that something big just happened, and he just runs along and goes with the flow. He is lifeless for the majority of the film, and when his poignant moments come, you stare in agony just wishing that he was not so stiff delivering it. Weisz fares even worse. Despite being the key to the entire production, she goes totally underused. I never got a real sense of why Jackman was moved to keep her alive in any of the scenarios, and got even less a sense as to what she brought to the film besides being the reason for the search. She is good for what she does, but her character does not feel complete. I can only hope this too, was something that got cut.The film succeeds however, in astonishingly detailed style, in its set design and visual effects. They are just totally awe-inspiring, and so totally unique. It is quite the trip, and it never lets up in any case. The colours used are just totally out of this world. Every single visual spec is more than a treat for the audience. It guides them through this totally flawed movie, and is visually appetizing. If I continued watching for any reason (or recommended this to anyone), it was because of just how much effort was obviously used in bringing Aronofsky's vision to life. He clearly is very vivid and imaginative, and his film benefits as a result. It all feels so fluid and so real, even at its most overt-the-top moments. It really breathes life into how biblically and epically laden the film is, and suggests just how much greater it could have been if it was shown in its originally conceived form.Although it is heavily flawed, The Fountain works as a beautiful case of visual direction. Aronofsky clearly was far too ambitious with this third project of his. If he dug a little deeper into his original screenplay, I think he could have made this compromise a whole lot more watchable than it is.6.5/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-503

ur1622466

title: Visually astounding, but far too flawed to be looked at as anything more review: After seeing the brilliance he delivered in Requiem for a Dream last summer, I was up for anything Darren Aronofsky had to offer. I never had a chance to view his first film, Pi, but I did want to make a point of seeing The Fountain as soon as I could. And despite the heavily negative reviews I read, I figured it had to be somewhat worthwhile.So as anyone who has read anything on this film can tell you, The Fountain cycles through a thousand year cycle of a man named Tom (Hugh Jackman), and the love of his life, Isabel (Rachel Weisz), and his search for everlasting life. In 1500, he is a Spanish conquistador, searching for a tree that will keep his queen alive forever. In 2000, he is a lab scientist trying to find a cure for his ailing wife. In 2500, he is a cosmonaut, traveling through space with a tree, haunted by old memories.While the film is undeniably unique and original, it often played itself out to look like a movie that was originally envisioned to be so much grander. It really does feel like Aronofsky made a compromise and took out the real lavishness of the film, and just left the bare bones. Not that the powerful and deep seated core of the movie is not there, it just feels like that is it, and nothing more.While this would not usually sound like a bad thing, it proves to be one here. Whole sequences go on for minutes at a time, and they just point to something that is either not there, or not worthy of retrieving. Every moment in the film is interconnected (hence why some are overplayed quite annoyingly), but every moment does not feel like it is needed. It just turns boring really quickly, and leads to a lot of eye-rolling as the movie barrels on. And for a movie that is just over ninety minutes, that just does not work. While editing probably would not have solved this, more coherency in these redundant sequences probably would have helped.And while the film is fairly easy to follow at first (despite the jumpiness between time periods and its numerous allusions to everything from the bible to medieval times), it completely turns itself on its own head during its denouement. I expected my mind to get screwed with, but it just did not seem to make a whole total whack of sense the way Aronofsky did it. It seemed more like he wanted to play out every idea he has, and just throw it at the audience all at once and yell "Gotcha!" My mind hurts even now, just attempting to comprehend the ultimate point of The Fountain. Was it all an exercise to toy with me, or did Aronofsky genuinely believe he delivered the film he set out to originally? If the whole film did anything for me, it is the fact that I am now curious to see what the original vision was, and if it was just as buggy as this one.What the film also loses in a lot of cases is emotion from the cast. The entire supporting cast looks like they are either watching a train wreck or just seem completely confused at why they are even there throughout the entirety of the film. None of them are particularly notable, and most are seen for fleeting minutes, if at all (and the majority are only used in the events that take place in 2000).Jackman seems like he is really trying, but only makes it work half the time. You can see the pain in his face and in his actions, but when brilliant ideas that make the film progress occur, he just does not seem too phased by what has hit him. He looks just like the script reader told him that something big just happened, and he just runs along and goes with the flow. He is lifeless for the majority of the film, and when his poignant moments come, you stare in agony just wishing that he was not so stiff delivering it. Weisz fares even worse. Despite being the key to the entire production, she goes totally underused. I never got a real sense of why Jackman was moved to keep her alive in any of the scenarios, and got even less a sense as to what she brought to the film besides being the reason for the search. She is good for what she does, but her character does not feel complete. I can only hope this too, was something that got cut.The film succeeds however, in astonishingly detailed style, in its set design and visual effects. They are just totally awe-inspiring, and so totally unique. It is quite the trip, and it never lets up in any case. The colours used are just totally out of this world. Every single visual spec is more than a treat for the audience. It guides them through this totally flawed movie, and is visually appetizing. If I continued watching for any reason (or recommended this to anyone), it was because of just how much effort was obviously used in bringing Aronofsky's vision to life. He clearly is very vivid and imaginative, and his film benefits as a result. It all feels so fluid and so real, even at its most overt-the-top moments. It really breathes life into how biblically and epically laden the film is, and suggests just how much greater it could have been if it was shown in its originally conceived form.Although it is heavily flawed, The Fountain works as a beautiful case of visual direction. Aronofsky clearly was far too ambitious with this third project of his. If he dug a little deeper into his original screenplay, I think he could have made this compromise a whole lot more watchable than it is.6.5/10.

Be Prepared To Think!

tt0414993

If you're going to watch The Fountain, I must caution viewers that this is one of those films that require some semblance of a brain due to the complexity of this film. People didn't like this film precisely because they did not want to think. However, I found this film fascinating because of the story that is rich in underlying themes about eternal love. This film not only boasts a well-made and rather controversial storyline, it's visually striking and features some amazing visuals to look at. Just looking at the end credits will say it all.Darren Aronofsky's film has one complicated plot that spans centuries and millennia and talks about the past, present, and future. There are story lines revolving around a guy named Tom who's looking for a cure for his dying wife, a guy named Tomas Verdes who is looking for the Tree of Life, and a space traveler who hallucinates his lost love.Hugh Jackman delivers one of his career-best performance as he plays these multiple characters. He sheds away his X-Men persona and gives a heartfelt, emotional, and raw performance. A performance we have not seen from him before. Rachel Weisz does a very good job as well.Overall, if you're able to close your eyes and use your brain, you'll more likely to find this film fantastic. I loved how this film drew parallels from the past through future while looking for the meaning of life and what one takes to be in love. There are several biblical references here and that makes the journey even more spiritual. A fantastic and a vastly underrated movie to behold. I rate this film 9/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-980

ur17646017

title: Be Prepared To Think! review: If you're going to watch The Fountain, I must caution viewers that this is one of those films that require some semblance of a brain due to the complexity of this film. People didn't like this film precisely because they did not want to think. However, I found this film fascinating because of the story that is rich in underlying themes about eternal love. This film not only boasts a well-made and rather controversial storyline, it's visually striking and features some amazing visuals to look at. Just looking at the end credits will say it all.Darren Aronofsky's film has one complicated plot that spans centuries and millennia and talks about the past, present, and future. There are story lines revolving around a guy named Tom who's looking for a cure for his dying wife, a guy named Tomas Verdes who is looking for the Tree of Life, and a space traveler who hallucinates his lost love.Hugh Jackman delivers one of his career-best performance as he plays these multiple characters. He sheds away his X-Men persona and gives a heartfelt, emotional, and raw performance. A performance we have not seen from him before. Rachel Weisz does a very good job as well.Overall, if you're able to close your eyes and use your brain, you'll more likely to find this film fantastic. I loved how this film drew parallels from the past through future while looking for the meaning of life and what one takes to be in love. There are several biblical references here and that makes the journey even more spiritual. A fantastic and a vastly underrated movie to behold. I rate this film 9/10.

My interpretation of events...

tt0414993

From the first time I heard of it, I was very interested by the concept of Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain," starring Aronofsky's wife Rachel Weicz and Hugh Jackman. It has been receiving an extraordinarily mixed reaction from critics and audiences, and there seems to be very little middle ground. It is, truth be told, a bit pretentious, and (if my interpretation is correct) it's not saying anything new (it's the same basic idea as the moral of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone"), but it's quite an impressive work of art. It is an interesting, poetic film, with a great performance from Hugh Jackman (Rachel Weicz's role is less substantial, as only in the 2000 segment is she given a real part, but she is also good).Without having looked at any of the other theories that have been posted, this is my interpretation: the anchor story is the 2000 segment (although there's no specific dates given, other than in the trailer), about the quest for medical immortality. Thomas is looking for the medical "fountain of youth/life", while Izzie has found a kind of acceptance about death and the universe. The 1500 segment is her allegorical story about her life, with the last chapter left open for Thomas to write. In the 2000 segment, Thomas finds the medical fountain, but too late, and so he lives into the 2500 segment, traveling with the Mayan spirit-tree thing to the nebula. The tree dies, just as Izzie died right before the cure was found, and so he realizes the truth about death and the afterlife. The final section of the 1500 segment, which we see intercut with the finale in 2500, is Thomas' realization of how the last chapter of Izzie's book should be written.My assumption through most of the film was that Tomas found the Tree of Life and he and Queen Isabella lived into the 2000 segment, at which point she became ill, since the Tree doesn't grant invulnerability; obviously, I changed this perception when Tomas turned into a flower bush.The other interesting thing I noted was that the Grand Inquisitor's spiel about death was more or less correct; the characterization of the body as a "prison" doesn't really fit, but the idea of death freeing all souls is right.I give it a 10 out of 10 as a work of art; it should be seen by people, even if many will not like it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-390

ur3109921

title: My interpretation of events... review: From the first time I heard of it, I was very interested by the concept of Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain," starring Aronofsky's wife Rachel Weicz and Hugh Jackman. It has been receiving an extraordinarily mixed reaction from critics and audiences, and there seems to be very little middle ground. It is, truth be told, a bit pretentious, and (if my interpretation is correct) it's not saying anything new (it's the same basic idea as the moral of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone"), but it's quite an impressive work of art. It is an interesting, poetic film, with a great performance from Hugh Jackman (Rachel Weicz's role is less substantial, as only in the 2000 segment is she given a real part, but she is also good).Without having looked at any of the other theories that have been posted, this is my interpretation: the anchor story is the 2000 segment (although there's no specific dates given, other than in the trailer), about the quest for medical immortality. Thomas is looking for the medical "fountain of youth/life", while Izzie has found a kind of acceptance about death and the universe. The 1500 segment is her allegorical story about her life, with the last chapter left open for Thomas to write. In the 2000 segment, Thomas finds the medical fountain, but too late, and so he lives into the 2500 segment, traveling with the Mayan spirit-tree thing to the nebula. The tree dies, just as Izzie died right before the cure was found, and so he realizes the truth about death and the afterlife. The final section of the 1500 segment, which we see intercut with the finale in 2500, is Thomas' realization of how the last chapter of Izzie's book should be written.My assumption through most of the film was that Tomas found the Tree of Life and he and Queen Isabella lived into the 2000 segment, at which point she became ill, since the Tree doesn't grant invulnerability; obviously, I changed this perception when Tomas turned into a flower bush.The other interesting thing I noted was that the Grand Inquisitor's spiel about death was more or less correct; the characterization of the body as a "prison" doesn't really fit, but the idea of death freeing all souls is right.I give it a 10 out of 10 as a work of art; it should be seen by people, even if many will not like it.

Beautifully haunting and wonderfully bizarre, but its ambitions weigh it down, along with its clinical and distant approach to the characters

tt0414993

Visually stimulating but frustratingly disconnected from its viewers, The Fountain establishes director Darren Aronofsky as one of our most daring and adventurous directors – but his ambitions are ultimately what cause The Fountain to sink beneath its own heavy-handed pretensions.Aronofsky has a way of making the most everyday events thrilling and beautiful, but his clinical approach to the characters of the film – portrayed by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz – creates a cold distance. A film such as this requires us to invest our emotions in the characters, which is impossible to do when they are so haphazardly presented. While the art sequences are mesmerizing, every time Aronofsky spends time focusing on his characters the movie hits a brick wall and becomes incredibly tiresome.The fragmented story structure certainly doesn't help much in this regard. While it is no doubt an excuse for some awe-inspiring visual creations, every time Aronofsky cuts to another storyline more distance is drawn between the audience and the characters in the movie.The plot, if you can follow this, involves a driven doctor (Jackman) trying to develop a cure for death. He claims it is just a disease, like anything else, and that he will be the one to give humans infinite life.He is not driven by greed – his wife (Weisz) is dying of cancer and so he feels obligated to deliver her a cure.Meanwhile, the film veers off onto two different paths – one involving a Spanish conquistador and his quest for the Fountain of Youth, the other about the doctor from the first storyline (I think?) being trapped in a bubble in outer space with a dying tree (which his wife is apart of because it grew from her corpse – yes, honestly) and his struggle to…umm…preserve the tree and himself so they can live together forever.The film's soundtrack, composed by Clint Mansell (Requiem for a Dream), is perhaps the highlight of the entire picture. Mansell is quickly establishing a name for himself as one of Hollywood's greatest composers.And certainly the movie will wow audiences looking for something pretty. But it is not a very enjoyable experience, for the most part, and the scenes involving human conflict dragged on seemingly forever.And so as an art-house picture this is wonderfully bizarre, beautifully haunting and utterly captivating; I just wish Aronofsky had chosen a film that did not require more emotional involvement than he was willing to develop.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-146

ur1173088

title: Beautifully haunting and wonderfully bizarre, but its ambitions weigh it down, along with its clinical and distant approach to the characters review: Visually stimulating but frustratingly disconnected from its viewers, The Fountain establishes director Darren Aronofsky as one of our most daring and adventurous directors – but his ambitions are ultimately what cause The Fountain to sink beneath its own heavy-handed pretensions.Aronofsky has a way of making the most everyday events thrilling and beautiful, but his clinical approach to the characters of the film – portrayed by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz – creates a cold distance. A film such as this requires us to invest our emotions in the characters, which is impossible to do when they are so haphazardly presented. While the art sequences are mesmerizing, every time Aronofsky spends time focusing on his characters the movie hits a brick wall and becomes incredibly tiresome.The fragmented story structure certainly doesn't help much in this regard. While it is no doubt an excuse for some awe-inspiring visual creations, every time Aronofsky cuts to another storyline more distance is drawn between the audience and the characters in the movie.The plot, if you can follow this, involves a driven doctor (Jackman) trying to develop a cure for death. He claims it is just a disease, like anything else, and that he will be the one to give humans infinite life.He is not driven by greed – his wife (Weisz) is dying of cancer and so he feels obligated to deliver her a cure.Meanwhile, the film veers off onto two different paths – one involving a Spanish conquistador and his quest for the Fountain of Youth, the other about the doctor from the first storyline (I think?) being trapped in a bubble in outer space with a dying tree (which his wife is apart of because it grew from her corpse – yes, honestly) and his struggle to…umm…preserve the tree and himself so they can live together forever.The film's soundtrack, composed by Clint Mansell (Requiem for a Dream), is perhaps the highlight of the entire picture. Mansell is quickly establishing a name for himself as one of Hollywood's greatest composers.And certainly the movie will wow audiences looking for something pretty. But it is not a very enjoyable experience, for the most part, and the scenes involving human conflict dragged on seemingly forever.And so as an art-house picture this is wonderfully bizarre, beautifully haunting and utterly captivating; I just wish Aronofsky had chosen a film that did not require more emotional involvement than he was willing to develop.

If your movie is so obscure as to alienate viewers, you've failed as a director.

tt0414993

The Fountain. Ninety minutes of overly pretentious, pompous nonsense that tries to convince you it is art. Well, it sure does look very nicely filmed and many scenes are very artistic.Sadly, that is where it also fails the hardest. It's as if so much attention was paid to trying to make it look good that they failed to really do much of anything with such movie staples as plot, script, dialogue etc.Yes, I know. It IS supposed to be an art piece. But that's the problem. Some movies can be art, but not all art can be a movie. In this case, this is a clear instance of the latter, rather than the former.The Fountain comes across as directionless and shallow fairly early on. It isn't really anything like so poor, but by the time you are supposed to be thinking hard about what is going on, you've already switched off. Almost nothing is explained with any clarity and, in fact, the whole thing comes across as a self-indulgent mess.Only the current day section is real, which is what most people miss. The rest are flights of fancy by either Izzy or Tommy. However, this isn't immediately apparent from the movie. I understand that the budget was slashed in half, which can't have done it any favors. A little bit more kindness in the cutting room might have made things a little more obvious, but that isn't what happened. As a result, the entire movie feels disjointed and rushed.My problem with the film stems entirely from the poor way it is presented to audiences. Most people should simply not watch a movie like this, but, obviously, that does not rake in the dollars for the studios. So the movie was mis-represented prior to release to make it seem appealing to a wider audience. It doesn't, and never will have, mass market appeal.Does it appeal to me? Not really. I like movies that make you think. Here, however, even I met my limit. It just tries too hard and gives very little back to its audience for their efforts.At the box office, it failed even with a budget cut. $35 million to produce and only $16 million in worldwide receipts. How this one slipped through test-screening results is anyone's guess, but Aranofsky got away without it damaging his career too badly. I guess Black Swan redeemed him in the eyes of the studios, too, since it had such a massive profit margin. However, I hope he learned something from this film's failure.SUMMARY: Overblown nonsense, too cerebral for most audiences, art masquerading as a film when, in fact, it should have been a film all along. Really a movie for those who want to name drop to make themselves look clever.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-952

ur1980092

title: If your movie is so obscure as to alienate viewers, you've failed as a director. review: The Fountain. Ninety minutes of overly pretentious, pompous nonsense that tries to convince you it is art. Well, it sure does look very nicely filmed and many scenes are very artistic.Sadly, that is where it also fails the hardest. It's as if so much attention was paid to trying to make it look good that they failed to really do much of anything with such movie staples as plot, script, dialogue etc.Yes, I know. It IS supposed to be an art piece. But that's the problem. Some movies can be art, but not all art can be a movie. In this case, this is a clear instance of the latter, rather than the former.The Fountain comes across as directionless and shallow fairly early on. It isn't really anything like so poor, but by the time you are supposed to be thinking hard about what is going on, you've already switched off. Almost nothing is explained with any clarity and, in fact, the whole thing comes across as a self-indulgent mess.Only the current day section is real, which is what most people miss. The rest are flights of fancy by either Izzy or Tommy. However, this isn't immediately apparent from the movie. I understand that the budget was slashed in half, which can't have done it any favors. A little bit more kindness in the cutting room might have made things a little more obvious, but that isn't what happened. As a result, the entire movie feels disjointed and rushed.My problem with the film stems entirely from the poor way it is presented to audiences. Most people should simply not watch a movie like this, but, obviously, that does not rake in the dollars for the studios. So the movie was mis-represented prior to release to make it seem appealing to a wider audience. It doesn't, and never will have, mass market appeal.Does it appeal to me? Not really. I like movies that make you think. Here, however, even I met my limit. It just tries too hard and gives very little back to its audience for their efforts.At the box office, it failed even with a budget cut. $35 million to produce and only $16 million in worldwide receipts. How this one slipped through test-screening results is anyone's guess, but Aranofsky got away without it damaging his career too badly. I guess Black Swan redeemed him in the eyes of the studios, too, since it had such a massive profit margin. However, I hope he learned something from this film's failure.SUMMARY: Overblown nonsense, too cerebral for most audiences, art masquerading as a film when, in fact, it should have been a film all along. Really a movie for those who want to name drop to make themselves look clever.

Aronofsky is such a funny guy

tt0414993

I'll give this two stars for the beautiful set and the fact that there was actual effort involved, and one star for the fact that it is unique in presentation. However, this is one of the most unwatchable things I've ever seen."Daronofsky" has a pretty poor track record at this point. His first flick, "Pi", seemed watchable when I was a young, easily influenced, angsty teenager. Looking back on it today, even that film does not hold up so well, as Aronofsky movies parade style over substance while being totally oblivious to the fact. The next flick he did, "Requiem For a Dream" (featuring Jennifer Connelly, yowza!) was the most glorified, pretentious movie about drug addiction put to film. I always knew drugs were bad (eh heh heh...) but I never knew they could be so stylish! His film editing in his first two films is like MTV-meets-Tarantino except without the "Gilmore Girls"-on-steroids writing found in the latter. On the surface, his movies appear to be about profound things (Kabbalistic math, drug addiction, death and spirituality, Jennifer Connelly) but then you realize that he has nothing to say on these subjects. He just keeps flashing subject-related images with minimal, cryptic dialog and melancholic or ominous music. What sorcery! Which brings us to "The Fountain" a film purportedly abandoned by production companies and so forth because they thought it was too risky. I think their assessment was still rather generous. I think it's just plain bad. Here, for the third time, Aronofsky has proved himself to be an exclusively aesthetic director. It's strange -- Aronofsky doesn't seem to understand that people have covered the same tragic/epic themes in better movies that also contained developed plots and characters. Someone here argued that the main characters are archetypes of the human experience. Whatever. I would say the same thing about the characters in Takashi Miike's "Izo" (also unwatchable but much more complete in its grasp) or "Children of Paradise", a film in which the characters manage to be simultaneously ridiculous, endearing and exaggerated and yet totally human. Children of Paradise is a masterful meditation on love and, unlike this one, has a sense of HUMOR. Considering the lack of jokes in his movies, I am convinced that Aronofsky is not only unprofound, but also a spiritual STATUE.An example of the ridiculous pomp in this film: for some reason, Hugh Jackman randomly does Yoga and Taijiquan (Tai Chi) for brief segments. What relevance does this have to the grand human experience? Seriously, what of it? This is only relevant to people (like Aronofsky) who don't actually know anything about Yoga or Tai Chi. People who actually practice these things wouldn't advertise them as the pinnacle of human achievement in a movie about love."The Fountain" wants to be profound so very badly and yet just reeks of New Age yuppie pretense. You can critique anything and commend its artistic credibility and symbolism because: hind-sight is always 20-20! If you really thought this was deep, you just might be a New-Age yuppie. It's basically up there with "Mindwalk", "What the &($% Do We Know?" and any of the aforementioned films Aronofsky has done.Proof that Aronofsky is no great writing/directing talent? He has no sense of humor. He should direct other scripts and stories. Then he might have something.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-760

ur2826075

title: Aronofsky is such a funny guy review: I'll give this two stars for the beautiful set and the fact that there was actual effort involved, and one star for the fact that it is unique in presentation. However, this is one of the most unwatchable things I've ever seen."Daronofsky" has a pretty poor track record at this point. His first flick, "Pi", seemed watchable when I was a young, easily influenced, angsty teenager. Looking back on it today, even that film does not hold up so well, as Aronofsky movies parade style over substance while being totally oblivious to the fact. The next flick he did, "Requiem For a Dream" (featuring Jennifer Connelly, yowza!) was the most glorified, pretentious movie about drug addiction put to film. I always knew drugs were bad (eh heh heh...) but I never knew they could be so stylish! His film editing in his first two films is like MTV-meets-Tarantino except without the "Gilmore Girls"-on-steroids writing found in the latter. On the surface, his movies appear to be about profound things (Kabbalistic math, drug addiction, death and spirituality, Jennifer Connelly) but then you realize that he has nothing to say on these subjects. He just keeps flashing subject-related images with minimal, cryptic dialog and melancholic or ominous music. What sorcery! Which brings us to "The Fountain" a film purportedly abandoned by production companies and so forth because they thought it was too risky. I think their assessment was still rather generous. I think it's just plain bad. Here, for the third time, Aronofsky has proved himself to be an exclusively aesthetic director. It's strange -- Aronofsky doesn't seem to understand that people have covered the same tragic/epic themes in better movies that also contained developed plots and characters. Someone here argued that the main characters are archetypes of the human experience. Whatever. I would say the same thing about the characters in Takashi Miike's "Izo" (also unwatchable but much more complete in its grasp) or "Children of Paradise", a film in which the characters manage to be simultaneously ridiculous, endearing and exaggerated and yet totally human. Children of Paradise is a masterful meditation on love and, unlike this one, has a sense of HUMOR. Considering the lack of jokes in his movies, I am convinced that Aronofsky is not only unprofound, but also a spiritual STATUE.An example of the ridiculous pomp in this film: for some reason, Hugh Jackman randomly does Yoga and Taijiquan (Tai Chi) for brief segments. What relevance does this have to the grand human experience? Seriously, what of it? This is only relevant to people (like Aronofsky) who don't actually know anything about Yoga or Tai Chi. People who actually practice these things wouldn't advertise them as the pinnacle of human achievement in a movie about love."The Fountain" wants to be profound so very badly and yet just reeks of New Age yuppie pretense. You can critique anything and commend its artistic credibility and symbolism because: hind-sight is always 20-20! If you really thought this was deep, you just might be a New-Age yuppie. It's basically up there with "Mindwalk", "What the &($% Do We Know?" and any of the aforementioned films Aronofsky has done.Proof that Aronofsky is no great writing/directing talent? He has no sense of humor. He should direct other scripts and stories. Then he might have something.

Not for everyone

tt0414993

This chronicles several lives of the characters of Jackman and Weisz, who are always connected to one another(they were different relationships, but they always knew and cared about each other). It's about love, destiny, death, spirituality, the circle of life, nature and our fragile existence in this world. You won't completely know what's going on until the end, and it leaves things open for interpretation. This has been called a new generation's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and to an extent, the comparison can at least be made. While the running time is a mere 87 minutes sans credits, this does have a slow pace(there at those who'd outright say it drags). As far as level of detail, poetry of cinematography(don't get me wrong, this does look good, and there are some stunning visuals) and dramatic effect, this has nothing on Kubrick's film. The score is great. This makes you think(is it about accepting loss, or fighting until the end? Etc.), and the philosophy has some roots in Eastern religion, and explores the idea of living forever, present in many, perhaps most, faiths. There is little CGI, instead the majority of the FX are unique and organic, as they are, quite simply, not fake or staged... it's micro-photography of chemical reactions in petri dishes. The acting is well-done and the characters are relatively swiftly developed(they aren't lingered on, usually), though it really isn't the focus, and you don't go out of this remembering either that strongly. The DVD comes with a short production called Life on a Boat that I'm not sure I "get", and a feature-length 64 minute documentary called Inside the Fountain, which I will review on its separate page here on the site. There is some violence and sensuality in this. I recommend this to those who believe they will enjoy it. 7/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-895

ur2093818

title: Not for everyone review: This chronicles several lives of the characters of Jackman and Weisz, who are always connected to one another(they were different relationships, but they always knew and cared about each other). It's about love, destiny, death, spirituality, the circle of life, nature and our fragile existence in this world. You won't completely know what's going on until the end, and it leaves things open for interpretation. This has been called a new generation's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and to an extent, the comparison can at least be made. While the running time is a mere 87 minutes sans credits, this does have a slow pace(there at those who'd outright say it drags). As far as level of detail, poetry of cinematography(don't get me wrong, this does look good, and there are some stunning visuals) and dramatic effect, this has nothing on Kubrick's film. The score is great. This makes you think(is it about accepting loss, or fighting until the end? Etc.), and the philosophy has some roots in Eastern religion, and explores the idea of living forever, present in many, perhaps most, faiths. There is little CGI, instead the majority of the FX are unique and organic, as they are, quite simply, not fake or staged... it's micro-photography of chemical reactions in petri dishes. The acting is well-done and the characters are relatively swiftly developed(they aren't lingered on, usually), though it really isn't the focus, and you don't go out of this remembering either that strongly. The DVD comes with a short production called Life on a Boat that I'm not sure I "get", and a feature-length 64 minute documentary called Inside the Fountain, which I will review on its separate page here on the site. There is some violence and sensuality in this. I recommend this to those who believe they will enjoy it. 7/10

Visual poetry

tt0414993

In Requiem for a Dream, director Darren Aronofsky and cinematographer Matthew Libatique used innovative techniques to mimic the effects of drugs taken by the film's protagonists, fish eye lenses deforming the living space and fast motion distorting the conversation time-frame. In The Fountain, the same team attempt to convey more of a mystical experience, with story layers little more than props for elaborate and stunning visual metaphors.On a basic level, Hugh Jackman represents man's eternal struggle to save the woman he loves. In 16th Century Spain, he is a Conquistador searching for the Fountain of Youth in a Mayan Garden of Eden. When he succeeds, Queen Isabel of Spain will be his Eve. As a modern day scientist, he is trying to find a cure to save his wife, Izzi, who is dying of cancer and who is also writing a book called The Fountain. As a 26th Century astronaut, he is trying to grasp these mysteries that have always seemed just out of reach.The genre and style of the film, like its subject matter, is elusive. At first, it seems determinedly weird, like David Lynch with no clues. As it develops, there is more than a nod to the elaborate aesthetic of films like Cremaster or the favourite of psychedelic cinema-goers, 2001. You become wrapped up in a visual overload of spectacular beauty (but if you were thinking of casually popping some acid before going to see it, you should be aware that there are also many dark, menacing images). This is no sanitised flight of fancy - it has more in common with Pan's Labyrinth than Star Trek. The futuristic images have an almost Matthew Barney -like organic evolution to them, whereas those of the Spanish Inquisition create a mandala of horror that fascinates at the same time that it shocks. A sense of Pandorian menace is rarely far from the explosion of visual beauty that constantly assaults our senses.So what of the story? It is here that The Fountain is at its weakest. It creates intoxicating images of life, death, and re-birth but the theoretical connections are hazy at best. In the most developed of the tripartite, intertextual stories, Dr Tom Crio's experiments on monkeys will, he hopes, yield a method of shrinking the brain tumour affecting his wife. It is his love for her that motivates him to push beyond protocol. It also blinds him to the fact that he is making a remarkable scientific breakthrough - that of reversing the aging process. The film delicately weaves fringe science, Mayan myth, and symbols of the memories and inspirations that live forever when someone dies. We see the conflict of scientific and artistic temperaments - Tommy never, it seems, has enough time to explore the simple poetry of life with Izzi, with things like the first snow. She wants him to help her finish her book. "Please, leave me alone - I don't know how it ends," he says to her early on. The words haunt him later as they take on a different meaning.A haunting score and remarkable special effects support a movie that has more talent than there were perhaps dollars to support. The Fountain is avant-garde and so far from the mainstream that you shouldn't even consider it unless you are prepared for a serious challenge. But if you are, you may be amply rewarded. The feint-hearted will dismiss it as a pretentious mess while aficionados will extol its haunting beauty. Whatever you do, don't even think of watching it on DVD.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-393

ur0064493

title: Visual poetry review: In Requiem for a Dream, director Darren Aronofsky and cinematographer Matthew Libatique used innovative techniques to mimic the effects of drugs taken by the film's protagonists, fish eye lenses deforming the living space and fast motion distorting the conversation time-frame. In The Fountain, the same team attempt to convey more of a mystical experience, with story layers little more than props for elaborate and stunning visual metaphors.On a basic level, Hugh Jackman represents man's eternal struggle to save the woman he loves. In 16th Century Spain, he is a Conquistador searching for the Fountain of Youth in a Mayan Garden of Eden. When he succeeds, Queen Isabel of Spain will be his Eve. As a modern day scientist, he is trying to find a cure to save his wife, Izzi, who is dying of cancer and who is also writing a book called The Fountain. As a 26th Century astronaut, he is trying to grasp these mysteries that have always seemed just out of reach.The genre and style of the film, like its subject matter, is elusive. At first, it seems determinedly weird, like David Lynch with no clues. As it develops, there is more than a nod to the elaborate aesthetic of films like Cremaster or the favourite of psychedelic cinema-goers, 2001. You become wrapped up in a visual overload of spectacular beauty (but if you were thinking of casually popping some acid before going to see it, you should be aware that there are also many dark, menacing images). This is no sanitised flight of fancy - it has more in common with Pan's Labyrinth than Star Trek. The futuristic images have an almost Matthew Barney -like organic evolution to them, whereas those of the Spanish Inquisition create a mandala of horror that fascinates at the same time that it shocks. A sense of Pandorian menace is rarely far from the explosion of visual beauty that constantly assaults our senses.So what of the story? It is here that The Fountain is at its weakest. It creates intoxicating images of life, death, and re-birth but the theoretical connections are hazy at best. In the most developed of the tripartite, intertextual stories, Dr Tom Crio's experiments on monkeys will, he hopes, yield a method of shrinking the brain tumour affecting his wife. It is his love for her that motivates him to push beyond protocol. It also blinds him to the fact that he is making a remarkable scientific breakthrough - that of reversing the aging process. The film delicately weaves fringe science, Mayan myth, and symbols of the memories and inspirations that live forever when someone dies. We see the conflict of scientific and artistic temperaments - Tommy never, it seems, has enough time to explore the simple poetry of life with Izzi, with things like the first snow. She wants him to help her finish her book. "Please, leave me alone - I don't know how it ends," he says to her early on. The words haunt him later as they take on a different meaning.A haunting score and remarkable special effects support a movie that has more talent than there were perhaps dollars to support. The Fountain is avant-garde and so far from the mainstream that you shouldn't even consider it unless you are prepared for a serious challenge. But if you are, you may be amply rewarded. The feint-hearted will dismiss it as a pretentious mess while aficionados will extol its haunting beauty. Whatever you do, don't even think of watching it on DVD.

96 minutes of mental muscle ache

tt0414993

We tend to be twice as hard on those we love, simply because we care. With "Pi" and "Requiem for a Dream", Darren Aronofsky has raised the bar of our affection to high heaven. But with the affection comes the attention, and with the attention comes the scrutiny. "The Fountain" doesn't pass the test. By comparison with his early works, this feels like a polished, feature-length yoga class, but without the uplifting effects of fitness or relaxation. Drawing on a crude mixture of biblical, pagan and new age imagery, Aronofsky gets triple side-tracked in his debut as sole screenwriter. Tom, an obsessed neurosurgeon (Hugh Jackman), and his monkish alter ego set out in pursuit of the tree of life. In the meantime, Tom's lovely wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz, aka Mrs Aronofsky) is busy penning "The Fountain", the book of *her* life that will reveal all the mysteries. Quite frankly, we don't give a rat's ass at this point. To muck things up yet a little more, the book features Tom as Spanish Conquistador Tomas, and Izzi as none other than Queen Isabel of Spain. My take is that Aronofsky was so high on surrogate hormones, overflowing with affection for his pregnant wife, that he simply lost it. Rumor has it that Rachel Weisz went into labor as she was watching the final cut and gave birth while the closing credits were still flickering. Good for her.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-518

ur12415200

title: 96 minutes of mental muscle ache review: We tend to be twice as hard on those we love, simply because we care. With "Pi" and "Requiem for a Dream", Darren Aronofsky has raised the bar of our affection to high heaven. But with the affection comes the attention, and with the attention comes the scrutiny. "The Fountain" doesn't pass the test. By comparison with his early works, this feels like a polished, feature-length yoga class, but without the uplifting effects of fitness or relaxation. Drawing on a crude mixture of biblical, pagan and new age imagery, Aronofsky gets triple side-tracked in his debut as sole screenwriter. Tom, an obsessed neurosurgeon (Hugh Jackman), and his monkish alter ego set out in pursuit of the tree of life. In the meantime, Tom's lovely wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz, aka Mrs Aronofsky) is busy penning "The Fountain", the book of *her* life that will reveal all the mysteries. Quite frankly, we don't give a rat's ass at this point. To muck things up yet a little more, the book features Tom as Spanish Conquistador Tomas, and Izzi as none other than Queen Isabel of Spain. My take is that Aronofsky was so high on surrogate hormones, overflowing with affection for his pregnant wife, that he simply lost it. Rumor has it that Rachel Weisz went into labor as she was watching the final cut and gave birth while the closing credits were still flickering. Good for her.

Trippy Kubrickian fable of timeless love; Aronofsky's labor of love is palpable

tt0414993

THE FOUNTAIN (2006) *** Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, Ellen Burstyn, Mark Margolis, Stephen McHattie, Fernando Hernandez, Cliff Curtis, Sean Patrick Thomas, Donna Murphy, Ethan Suplee. Filmmaker Darren Aronofsky's labor of love finally comes to fruition in this trippy Kubrickian fable of timeless love between eternal lovers Jackman and Weisz (each portraying three versions of one character) linked in the theme of discovering a cure for death and the pursuit of the mythical Fountain of Youth/Tree of Life. Told with unrequited brio and consummate technical skill - kudos to long-time collaborative cinematographer Matthew Libatique's wonderful photography, Jay Rabinowitz's sharp editing , exquisite production design by James Chinlund and the ethereally haunting score by Clint Mansell - the loginess does mire in bits but it is the everlasting triumph of the human spirit that underscores the theme of desire, faith and again, love that really shines in this blend of romance, sci-fi, fantasy and drama.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-206

ur0937743

title: Trippy Kubrickian fable of timeless love; Aronofsky's labor of love is palpable review: THE FOUNTAIN (2006) *** Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, Ellen Burstyn, Mark Margolis, Stephen McHattie, Fernando Hernandez, Cliff Curtis, Sean Patrick Thomas, Donna Murphy, Ethan Suplee. Filmmaker Darren Aronofsky's labor of love finally comes to fruition in this trippy Kubrickian fable of timeless love between eternal lovers Jackman and Weisz (each portraying three versions of one character) linked in the theme of discovering a cure for death and the pursuit of the mythical Fountain of Youth/Tree of Life. Told with unrequited brio and consummate technical skill - kudos to long-time collaborative cinematographer Matthew Libatique's wonderful photography, Jay Rabinowitz's sharp editing , exquisite production design by James Chinlund and the ethereally haunting score by Clint Mansell - the loginess does mire in bits but it is the everlasting triumph of the human spirit that underscores the theme of desire, faith and again, love that really shines in this blend of romance, sci-fi, fantasy and drama.

Tell me what is this all about.

tt0414993

Brad Pitt & Cate Blanchettw were supposed to star in this Darren Aronofsky piece of junk. It was shelved, IT SHOULD HAVE STAYED SHELVED.I did not understand one single scene or know what this was all about. I had no idea of what was happening, I also could have cared less,The usually reliable Hugh Jackman & beautiful Rachel Weisz are the leads in this junk-pile of a movie.They both did not come across to me.You needed a guide map to understand what was happening.There was not one decent production credit. DO NOT SEE THIS ONEratings 1/2* (out of 4) 18 points (out of 100) IMDb 1 (out of 10) **** I cant remember the last time I gave a film this low a rating.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-580

ur0495697

title: Tell me what is this all about. review: Brad Pitt & Cate Blanchettw were supposed to star in this Darren Aronofsky piece of junk. It was shelved, IT SHOULD HAVE STAYED SHELVED.I did not understand one single scene or know what this was all about. I had no idea of what was happening, I also could have cared less,The usually reliable Hugh Jackman & beautiful Rachel Weisz are the leads in this junk-pile of a movie.They both did not come across to me.You needed a guide map to understand what was happening.There was not one decent production credit. DO NOT SEE THIS ONEratings 1/2* (out of 4) 18 points (out of 100) IMDb 1 (out of 10) **** I cant remember the last time I gave a film this low a rating.

A masterpiece

tt0414993

It wouldn't be wrong to say that here in the UK "The Fountain" has had mixed reviews.The Bad. The Metro called it a "spectacular mess". The Independent called it a "towering, tumultuous folly".The Good. Empire Online called it a "complex and gorgeous mini-epic". Everybody on IMDb, who's bothered to review it, thinks that it's one of the greatest films ever made.I'm with the latter bunch. I thought that even in it's compromised form (there is a bit later about what "The Fountain" could have been), it was just wonderful. Absolutely fantastic. I was speechless at the end. (This has been a very difficult film to write about. I have started this pitiful review several times.) Forget the nonsense about this being a science fiction film about the search for the Tree Of Life. It's like saying that Soderbergh's "Solaris" (another film I really loved) is about George Clooney meeting aliens in outer space. "The Fountain" is way more than just a science fiction film. It's a beautiful and ambiguous meditation on life and death. Specifically it's about the all encompassing obsession, anger and frustration of a man unable and unwilling to accept the death of his wife and his eventual journey to acceptance and peace. It's easily the best performance, by a country mile, that Hugh Jackman has ever given. He should have been Oscar nominated. It's a scandal that he has been ignored."The Fountain" has had a troubled genesis.It was supposed to have gone into production in 2002, with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in the lead roles, but Pitt bailed days before the $70 million production was due to begin, citing that great old standby "creative differences" with Director Darren Aronofsky. Aronofsky went on to work on several other projects (a "Batman: Year One" film, that to be honest sounded fascinating because it would have been a realistic and gritty take on the Batman story, with much of the familiar back story jettisoned, and "Watchmen"), none of which made the screen, before securing a much reduced $35 million budget to crack on with "The Fountain" It meant a compromised movie. Less on special effects, huge sets and set pieces."The Fountain" was probably never going to be a huge financial success. It is an art film. It was booed at the Venice Film Festival (which was strange) and it died on it's release at the box office in the States. It is way too strange and obscure and good for the multiplex audience.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-473

ur0730831

title: A masterpiece review: It wouldn't be wrong to say that here in the UK "The Fountain" has had mixed reviews.The Bad. The Metro called it a "spectacular mess". The Independent called it a "towering, tumultuous folly".The Good. Empire Online called it a "complex and gorgeous mini-epic". Everybody on IMDb, who's bothered to review it, thinks that it's one of the greatest films ever made.I'm with the latter bunch. I thought that even in it's compromised form (there is a bit later about what "The Fountain" could have been), it was just wonderful. Absolutely fantastic. I was speechless at the end. (This has been a very difficult film to write about. I have started this pitiful review several times.) Forget the nonsense about this being a science fiction film about the search for the Tree Of Life. It's like saying that Soderbergh's "Solaris" (another film I really loved) is about George Clooney meeting aliens in outer space. "The Fountain" is way more than just a science fiction film. It's a beautiful and ambiguous meditation on life and death. Specifically it's about the all encompassing obsession, anger and frustration of a man unable and unwilling to accept the death of his wife and his eventual journey to acceptance and peace. It's easily the best performance, by a country mile, that Hugh Jackman has ever given. He should have been Oscar nominated. It's a scandal that he has been ignored."The Fountain" has had a troubled genesis.It was supposed to have gone into production in 2002, with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in the lead roles, but Pitt bailed days before the $70 million production was due to begin, citing that great old standby "creative differences" with Director Darren Aronofsky. Aronofsky went on to work on several other projects (a "Batman: Year One" film, that to be honest sounded fascinating because it would have been a realistic and gritty take on the Batman story, with much of the familiar back story jettisoned, and "Watchmen"), none of which made the screen, before securing a much reduced $35 million budget to crack on with "The Fountain" It meant a compromised movie. Less on special effects, huge sets and set pieces."The Fountain" was probably never going to be a huge financial success. It is an art film. It was booed at the Venice Film Festival (which was strange) and it died on it's release at the box office in the States. It is way too strange and obscure and good for the multiplex audience.

perfect combination of image, acting, music and style

tt0414993

a film that divides view points, one that most critics in the US and UK and France seem to have derided, well almost all critics today are sheep anyway all agreeing on the same mindless pap most of the time. this films is rewarding on so many levels, it is classic cinema, the fusion of image and sound/music has not been bettered since 2001 A Space Odyssey that film too was derided by many public and critics, but like the fountain it truly uses cinema language to draw you in emotionally, intellectually and viscerally. not many directors today have the courage to pace a film as slow as this and yet for those who can see, draw the viewer into his incredible universe. the fountain has to be seen without prejudice, without thinking, and without distraction. give it your time and you will be amply rewarded, it is also not without humour and some wonderfully unexpected scenes, and by the end you are uplifted and indeed inspired

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-570

ur0077225

title: perfect combination of image, acting, music and style review: a film that divides view points, one that most critics in the US and UK and France seem to have derided, well almost all critics today are sheep anyway all agreeing on the same mindless pap most of the time. this films is rewarding on so many levels, it is classic cinema, the fusion of image and sound/music has not been bettered since 2001 A Space Odyssey that film too was derided by many public and critics, but like the fountain it truly uses cinema language to draw you in emotionally, intellectually and viscerally. not many directors today have the courage to pace a film as slow as this and yet for those who can see, draw the viewer into his incredible universe. the fountain has to be seen without prejudice, without thinking, and without distraction. give it your time and you will be amply rewarded, it is also not without humour and some wonderfully unexpected scenes, and by the end you are uplifted and indeed inspired

A great movie that most people should enjoy

tt0443536

I'm not going to give Hoodwinked a harsh review like so many others. This is primarily a kids movie, nothing more, nothing less. All the kids in the cinema that I was in were roaring with laughter and I must admit at times I was also laughing out loud. Some of the older people and parents will enjoy the references it makes to other movies and fairy tales, although they are dumbed down for the suited audience.The plot is almost like an animated, kids version of Pulp Fiction. Many different stories (told by Little Red Riding Hood, The Wolf, The Woodsman and Granny) intertwine.The voice actors all do a great job with their characters and the animation, although nowhere near the best, was still pretty good. The characters were all hilarious, the funniest being a singing goat and a nutty squirrel (who I think was high).3/5.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-155

ur5237888

title: A great movie that most people should enjoy review: I'm not going to give Hoodwinked a harsh review like so many others. This is primarily a kids movie, nothing more, nothing less. All the kids in the cinema that I was in were roaring with laughter and I must admit at times I was also laughing out loud. Some of the older people and parents will enjoy the references it makes to other movies and fairy tales, although they are dumbed down for the suited audience.The plot is almost like an animated, kids version of Pulp Fiction. Many different stories (told by Little Red Riding Hood, The Wolf, The Woodsman and Granny) intertwine.The voice actors all do a great job with their characters and the animation, although nowhere near the best, was still pretty good. The characters were all hilarious, the funniest being a singing goat and a nutty squirrel (who I think was high).3/5.

Never trust a bunny!

tt0443536

I was just walking down the isle at Blockbuster Video and noticed "Hoodwinked!", I really got into the animation videos this year, so I figured to give it a shot and I have to say that I'm glad that I did. Hoodwinked is a really good and funny movie, it took the most simple childhood story of "Little Red Riding Hood" and turned it into a great animated twist on the story. Who ever knew that the wolf or granny had a different side of the story, right? Well, that's what Hoodwinked is about. Little Red Riding Hood is on her way to see her Granny, who also happens to be famous for her sweets, and of course, she gets a big surprise by the Big Bad Wolf. But instead of the way the typical story goes, the police arrest all of these suspects wondering what happened, and we go through each of their stories, and they all just happen to meet. But there's a big twist when we find out that there is more than meets the eye to this typical story.Even though this wasn't the best animated film I have seen, I loved Hoodwinked! It had a great script and was a great family film that anyone could enjoy. My only thing was that this movie had quite the cast, but you really couldn't tell who's voice was who's, which makes me think that they used computers, which isn't impressive. But I would always highly recommend Hoodwinked, especially just to see that cute little Twitchy.7/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-178

ur1293485

title: Never trust a bunny! review: I was just walking down the isle at Blockbuster Video and noticed "Hoodwinked!", I really got into the animation videos this year, so I figured to give it a shot and I have to say that I'm glad that I did. Hoodwinked is a really good and funny movie, it took the most simple childhood story of "Little Red Riding Hood" and turned it into a great animated twist on the story. Who ever knew that the wolf or granny had a different side of the story, right? Well, that's what Hoodwinked is about. Little Red Riding Hood is on her way to see her Granny, who also happens to be famous for her sweets, and of course, she gets a big surprise by the Big Bad Wolf. But instead of the way the typical story goes, the police arrest all of these suspects wondering what happened, and we go through each of their stories, and they all just happen to meet. But there's a big twist when we find out that there is more than meets the eye to this typical story.Even though this wasn't the best animated film I have seen, I loved Hoodwinked! It had a great script and was a great family film that anyone could enjoy. My only thing was that this movie had quite the cast, but you really couldn't tell who's voice was who's, which makes me think that they used computers, which isn't impressive. But I would always highly recommend Hoodwinked, especially just to see that cute little Twitchy.7/10

Hoodwinked! is a great surprise.

tt0443536

A stellar cast with Anne Hathaway (Princess Diaries) as Red, Glenn Close (101 Dalmations) as Granny, Patrick Warburton (Emporer's New Groove) as the wolf and Andy Dick (Shark Bait) as the bunny Boingo.Someone is stealing recipes throughout the entire forest, and through an investigation by Flippers (David Ogden Stiers) weaving stories from Red, Wolf, Granny and a woodsman (Jim Belushi) we will find out the culprit.With director-writer Cory Edwards as hyper-hilarious Twitchy, original songs by co-director/writer Todd Edwards, the amazing voice casting, and the clever updating of "Little Red Riding Hood", Hoodwinked! will be a wonderful treat for all audiences.At first I didn't think this movie would be good and I passed at the chance to watch it. After realizing Patrick Warburton was in it, I thought it would be okay. Then I saw the plot outline and it sounded okay, and I was incredibly surprised at how great it was. I recommend all audiences to watch this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-205

ur6732597

title: Hoodwinked! is a great surprise. review: A stellar cast with Anne Hathaway (Princess Diaries) as Red, Glenn Close (101 Dalmations) as Granny, Patrick Warburton (Emporer's New Groove) as the wolf and Andy Dick (Shark Bait) as the bunny Boingo.Someone is stealing recipes throughout the entire forest, and through an investigation by Flippers (David Ogden Stiers) weaving stories from Red, Wolf, Granny and a woodsman (Jim Belushi) we will find out the culprit.With director-writer Cory Edwards as hyper-hilarious Twitchy, original songs by co-director/writer Todd Edwards, the amazing voice casting, and the clever updating of "Little Red Riding Hood", Hoodwinked! will be a wonderful treat for all audiences.At first I didn't think this movie would be good and I passed at the chance to watch it. After realizing Patrick Warburton was in it, I thought it would be okay. Then I saw the plot outline and it sounded okay, and I was incredibly surprised at how great it was. I recommend all audiences to watch this.

Far, far superior to Shrek!

tt0443536

I think that CGI animated movies are stuck in a pretty bad rut. Before going to see (the rather boring and uneventful) Monster House the other day I was tortured to endless trailers for CGI talking animal movies. We already have Shrek, Shrek 2, Finding Nemo, Over the Hedge, Ice Age, Ice Age 2, Shark Tale, Madagascar, The Wild and Chicken Little. Now we can look forward to the likes of The Barnyard, Open Season and the highly gay-looking Happy Feet in coming months. Are studios and writers incapable of coming up with anything else? All these movies really say to kids is that the world is a happy, colorful place filled with fun and joy. Well, that's a lie. CGI animation opens up so many, many exciting possibilities for dynamic, subjective and otherwise impossible stories. Why are we constantly stuck with talking animals? Kids are not stupid, but in this world we are endlessly insulting their intelligence with moronic PC crap. Children have more potential than adults give them credit for and they deserve a better range of movies. The only good CGI animated kids movie I can think of in recent years is The Polar Express (okay, it's motion capture and not animation, but you know what I mean), but that's about to change with Hoodwinked.Most of you might unfairly dismiss Hoodwinked as a Shrek clone but it completely stomps all over anything our Scottish Ugly has to offer (which is nothing more than endless pop-culture references anyway). Beginning at the tail end of the story, Hoodwinked is told mostly in flashback, through Police interrogation, to the events leading up to Little Red Riding Hood discovering the Wolf in Grandmas bed. But this is not a story you've heard before.The Wolf is actually an investigative journalist (that's Chevy Chase's Fletch: same clothes, same personality, similar theme tune, same disguises and even some of the same dialogue) who has been tracking clues leading to a sort of corporate takeover of the forest. Someone has destroyed a lot of local business and plans to cap it all off with stealing Grandma's secret cookie recipe.Told from Red's, Wolf's, The Woodsman's and Grandma's point of view, all three versions of the events connect in clever and unique ways. Every one of them filled with loads of laugh-out-loud moments and some pretty cool action that never feels forced or contrived. There is not a single annoying character (rare for a kid's film) and it's hard to say who steals the show but if I HAD to choose, it would be Japeth the Goat.From a technical point of view, Hoodwinked looks more like Jimmy Neutron than it does Cars), but you'll hardly notice it. The story is what counts and when it's as sophisticated and funny as this, it's only a minor, minor quibble. Made for a meagre $15 million (compared to $70 million for Cars), they might not have had the best animators of Pixar behind them, but it still all good.There's never a dull moment in Hoodwinked and kids will love it. It is, in one word, brilliant! The best kid's movie in ages and probably for the rest of the year. This is one franchise I really want to see more of.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-160

ur0102816

title: Far, far superior to Shrek! review: I think that CGI animated movies are stuck in a pretty bad rut. Before going to see (the rather boring and uneventful) Monster House the other day I was tortured to endless trailers for CGI talking animal movies. We already have Shrek, Shrek 2, Finding Nemo, Over the Hedge, Ice Age, Ice Age 2, Shark Tale, Madagascar, The Wild and Chicken Little. Now we can look forward to the likes of The Barnyard, Open Season and the highly gay-looking Happy Feet in coming months. Are studios and writers incapable of coming up with anything else? All these movies really say to kids is that the world is a happy, colorful place filled with fun and joy. Well, that's a lie. CGI animation opens up so many, many exciting possibilities for dynamic, subjective and otherwise impossible stories. Why are we constantly stuck with talking animals? Kids are not stupid, but in this world we are endlessly insulting their intelligence with moronic PC crap. Children have more potential than adults give them credit for and they deserve a better range of movies. The only good CGI animated kids movie I can think of in recent years is The Polar Express (okay, it's motion capture and not animation, but you know what I mean), but that's about to change with Hoodwinked.Most of you might unfairly dismiss Hoodwinked as a Shrek clone but it completely stomps all over anything our Scottish Ugly has to offer (which is nothing more than endless pop-culture references anyway). Beginning at the tail end of the story, Hoodwinked is told mostly in flashback, through Police interrogation, to the events leading up to Little Red Riding Hood discovering the Wolf in Grandmas bed. But this is not a story you've heard before.The Wolf is actually an investigative journalist (that's Chevy Chase's Fletch: same clothes, same personality, similar theme tune, same disguises and even some of the same dialogue) who has been tracking clues leading to a sort of corporate takeover of the forest. Someone has destroyed a lot of local business and plans to cap it all off with stealing Grandma's secret cookie recipe.Told from Red's, Wolf's, The Woodsman's and Grandma's point of view, all three versions of the events connect in clever and unique ways. Every one of them filled with loads of laugh-out-loud moments and some pretty cool action that never feels forced or contrived. There is not a single annoying character (rare for a kid's film) and it's hard to say who steals the show but if I HAD to choose, it would be Japeth the Goat.From a technical point of view, Hoodwinked looks more like Jimmy Neutron than it does Cars), but you'll hardly notice it. The story is what counts and when it's as sophisticated and funny as this, it's only a minor, minor quibble. Made for a meagre $15 million (compared to $70 million for Cars), they might not have had the best animators of Pixar behind them, but it still all good.There's never a dull moment in Hoodwinked and kids will love it. It is, in one word, brilliant! The best kid's movie in ages and probably for the rest of the year. This is one franchise I really want to see more of.

The more I think about it, the awesomer it gets...

tt0443536

'Hoodwinked' purports to tell the true story of Little Red Riding Hood. This idea of ripping fairy tales apart and telling the "true" version isn't new - I have fond childhood memories of 'The True Story of the Three Little Pigs' (a wonderful book by Jon Scieszka), not to mention the 'Fractured Fairy Tales' segment from 'Rocky and Bullwinkle'.Anyway, 'Hoodwinked' follows a police investigation in to the events at Granny's house. Each character is questioned and gives their own account, and the overall story becomes more complete with each point of view.Now, maybe I have just been spoiled by the likes of Dreamworks, but the characters here all look like botox victims, and are actually less capable of facial expression that the whole Star Wars prequel cast put together. Indeed, the animation throughout is far from convincing, but this is mostly forgivable, given the budget that the filmmakers had to work with.Mostly. There are a few scenes so badly animated as to induce vomiting, even when compared to the rest of the film. It's one thing to make a film with "a nostalgic, stop-motion look", it's another thing entirely to give us animation that a dead badger could have done better.So it's just as well the animation in 'Hoodwinked' is a vehicle for the story and humour, rather than the main attraction.Speaking of humour, in 'Hoodwinked' it ranges from the laugh-out-loud-able to the not funny at all. Granny being an extreme sports buff is just too ironic to actually be amusing, but on the other hand pretty much everything the Wolf says is really, really funny.And... music!! Yes, 'Hoodwinked' is a musical (of sorts). There are actual musical numbers that the characters sing (the Schnitzel Song being particularly fun), along with purpose-written pop songs that pepper the film (one of which is sung by Ben Folds - WOO!) It's all good stuff.And the very best thing about 'Hoodwinked'? Being a small budget film, it wasn't forced to conform to Pixar's spineless "please everyone" regulations. Which means we get wonderfully un-PC characters like the Woodsman, a German so stereotypical as to be borderline racist, and Boingo, a cute bunny and flaming queen to boot. Will Pixar ever have the guts to do that? I doubt it.My opinion of 'Hoodwinked' straight after seeing it was that it was a fun, farcical romp, though deeply flawed and utterly forgettable.But as I thought, the pennies started to drop, and 'Hoodwinked' was suddenly a lot funnier than before. It wasn't that I didn't understand the humour when I first saw it, it was just that the sheer silliness of the film was yet to dawn on me.And I do so love the silliness.So I wholeheartedly recommend that you see 'Hoodwinked'. You might not like it immediately, but it'll grow on you.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-232

ur9156285

title: The more I think about it, the awesomer it gets... review: 'Hoodwinked' purports to tell the true story of Little Red Riding Hood. This idea of ripping fairy tales apart and telling the "true" version isn't new - I have fond childhood memories of 'The True Story of the Three Little Pigs' (a wonderful book by Jon Scieszka), not to mention the 'Fractured Fairy Tales' segment from 'Rocky and Bullwinkle'.Anyway, 'Hoodwinked' follows a police investigation in to the events at Granny's house. Each character is questioned and gives their own account, and the overall story becomes more complete with each point of view.Now, maybe I have just been spoiled by the likes of Dreamworks, but the characters here all look like botox victims, and are actually less capable of facial expression that the whole Star Wars prequel cast put together. Indeed, the animation throughout is far from convincing, but this is mostly forgivable, given the budget that the filmmakers had to work with.Mostly. There are a few scenes so badly animated as to induce vomiting, even when compared to the rest of the film. It's one thing to make a film with "a nostalgic, stop-motion look", it's another thing entirely to give us animation that a dead badger could have done better.So it's just as well the animation in 'Hoodwinked' is a vehicle for the story and humour, rather than the main attraction.Speaking of humour, in 'Hoodwinked' it ranges from the laugh-out-loud-able to the not funny at all. Granny being an extreme sports buff is just too ironic to actually be amusing, but on the other hand pretty much everything the Wolf says is really, really funny.And... music!! Yes, 'Hoodwinked' is a musical (of sorts). There are actual musical numbers that the characters sing (the Schnitzel Song being particularly fun), along with purpose-written pop songs that pepper the film (one of which is sung by Ben Folds - WOO!) It's all good stuff.And the very best thing about 'Hoodwinked'? Being a small budget film, it wasn't forced to conform to Pixar's spineless "please everyone" regulations. Which means we get wonderfully un-PC characters like the Woodsman, a German so stereotypical as to be borderline racist, and Boingo, a cute bunny and flaming queen to boot. Will Pixar ever have the guts to do that? I doubt it.My opinion of 'Hoodwinked' straight after seeing it was that it was a fun, farcical romp, though deeply flawed and utterly forgettable.But as I thought, the pennies started to drop, and 'Hoodwinked' was suddenly a lot funnier than before. It wasn't that I didn't understand the humour when I first saw it, it was just that the sheer silliness of the film was yet to dawn on me.And I do so love the silliness.So I wholeheartedly recommend that you see 'Hoodwinked'. You might not like it immediately, but it'll grow on you.

Lets face it, it wasn't the best!

tt0443536

Lets face it, this was not the best animated film I had ever seen. And for once I actually agree with some of the movie critics reviews. (Although I think 2 out of 10 is a little harsh) There definitely were a fare few funny moments where the whole cinema laughed as one but they just weren't consistent enough to keep me sustained. Also, this is no Shrek. This is just the filmmakers trying to make another Shrek with probably half the budget. There using the same idea (making a fractured fairytale) and just not putting as much effort into it.Another thing was little red riding hood. I just do not get her part. The audience really never gets to understand her character. In the first half she is portrayed as this singing daisy and in the second she is beating up bad guys. All the other main characters were just plain random. I mean having a cute bunny as the villain really was used out in Monty Python's The Search for the Holy Grail. The only funny cast was Granny (who was excellently portrayed by Glen Glose) and all the minor parts. (Especially a singing goat!) So when you want to get your kids or your small sibling a movie, I would not suggest Hoodwinked unless you have watched all the other recent animated films. Instead get them something created by Pixar or Shrek.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-211

ur15303216

title: Lets face it, it wasn't the best! review: Lets face it, this was not the best animated film I had ever seen. And for once I actually agree with some of the movie critics reviews. (Although I think 2 out of 10 is a little harsh) There definitely were a fare few funny moments where the whole cinema laughed as one but they just weren't consistent enough to keep me sustained. Also, this is no Shrek. This is just the filmmakers trying to make another Shrek with probably half the budget. There using the same idea (making a fractured fairytale) and just not putting as much effort into it.Another thing was little red riding hood. I just do not get her part. The audience really never gets to understand her character. In the first half she is portrayed as this singing daisy and in the second she is beating up bad guys. All the other main characters were just plain random. I mean having a cute bunny as the villain really was used out in Monty Python's The Search for the Holy Grail. The only funny cast was Granny (who was excellently portrayed by Glen Glose) and all the minor parts. (Especially a singing goat!) So when you want to get your kids or your small sibling a movie, I would not suggest Hoodwinked unless you have watched all the other recent animated films. Instead get them something created by Pixar or Shrek.

Hoodwinked!

tt0443536

This tired, lame movie with bad animation puts no effort in to make it half decent.It combines stars such as Patrick Warburton (TV's Rules of Engagement, Family Guy), Anne Hathaway (Devil Wears Prada), Glenn Close (Air Force One), Jim Belushi (TV's According to Jim), Andy Dick (TV's NewsRadio), Chazz Palminteri (A Bronx Tale) and many others. Unfortunately, it makes no effort in the writing, that it's complete crap. And of course, it has dated animation from the '80s.The story's not all that great. The voice acting leaves much to be desired. The lighting is horrible and the textures are gaudy and annoying.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-251

ur20481545

title: Hoodwinked! review: This tired, lame movie with bad animation puts no effort in to make it half decent.It combines stars such as Patrick Warburton (TV's Rules of Engagement, Family Guy), Anne Hathaway (Devil Wears Prada), Glenn Close (Air Force One), Jim Belushi (TV's According to Jim), Andy Dick (TV's NewsRadio), Chazz Palminteri (A Bronx Tale) and many others. Unfortunately, it makes no effort in the writing, that it's complete crap. And of course, it has dated animation from the '80s.The story's not all that great. The voice acting leaves much to be desired. The lighting is horrible and the textures are gaudy and annoying.

Amusing parody of the famous fairy-tale story.

tt0443536

When the little red riding hood (Voiced by Anne Hathaway), the wolf (Voiced by Patrick Warburton), the woodsman (Voiced by James Belushi) and the little red riding hood's grandma (Voiced by Glenn Close) gets mixed up in a complex story about the stolen recipes. When the chief bear (Voiced by Xzibit) wants to arrest them for conspiracy. But when the froggy detective by the name of Mr. Flippers (Voiced by David Ogden Stiers). Which this detective is trying to piece the story together by listening to their point of views. But there's something odd from each of their stories. Which the victims and the detective are trying to piece puzzle together.Written and Directed by Cory Edwards, Todd Edwards and Tony Leech made an amusing low-budget computer-animated feature of an very well-known fairy-tale story. The filmmakers made this film is told in a RASHOMON-Style story and updating "The Little Red Riding Hood" story with updated back-stories, character stereotypes and modern pop-culture references. This has an lively vocally performances. Andy Dick has a key role as the Bunny.DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (1.78:1) transfer and an fine-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an amusing commentary track by the filmmakers, deleted scenes with optional commentary by one of the filmmakers, an featurette and the original theatrical trailer. This is the first computer generated independent feature and this was also an box office hit. This film should play well on DVD. There's a sequel in the works as well. This movie has an stop-motion animation feel as well. This very funny songs as well, written by Todd Edwards. It's good fun for young and old. (*** ½/*****).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-215

ur5115203

title: Amusing parody of the famous fairy-tale story. review: When the little red riding hood (Voiced by Anne Hathaway), the wolf (Voiced by Patrick Warburton), the woodsman (Voiced by James Belushi) and the little red riding hood's grandma (Voiced by Glenn Close) gets mixed up in a complex story about the stolen recipes. When the chief bear (Voiced by Xzibit) wants to arrest them for conspiracy. But when the froggy detective by the name of Mr. Flippers (Voiced by David Ogden Stiers). Which this detective is trying to piece the story together by listening to their point of views. But there's something odd from each of their stories. Which the victims and the detective are trying to piece puzzle together.Written and Directed by Cory Edwards, Todd Edwards and Tony Leech made an amusing low-budget computer-animated feature of an very well-known fairy-tale story. The filmmakers made this film is told in a RASHOMON-Style story and updating "The Little Red Riding Hood" story with updated back-stories, character stereotypes and modern pop-culture references. This has an lively vocally performances. Andy Dick has a key role as the Bunny.DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (1.78:1) transfer and an fine-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an amusing commentary track by the filmmakers, deleted scenes with optional commentary by one of the filmmakers, an featurette and the original theatrical trailer. This is the first computer generated independent feature and this was also an box office hit. This film should play well on DVD. There's a sequel in the works as well. This movie has an stop-motion animation feel as well. This very funny songs as well, written by Todd Edwards. It's good fun for young and old. (*** ½/*****).

An Independent Animation That Deserves Some Attention

tt0443536

We all know the story of Little Red Riding Hood, right? But with director Cory Edwards at the helm of this fairy tale, things get changed …just a wee bit.Little Red (voiced by Anne Hathaway, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN) wants out of the forest. She's not happy living in such a constrained society. She dreams of flying over the mountains and seeing what lay beyond. But bad things are afoot in the forest. Food establishments are closing due to a rash of recipe thefts. Little Red has to protect her and Granny's recipe book before it disappears as well. But who's behind these thefts? And for what reason? When Little Red arrives at Granny's house, the typical meeting with The Wolf occurs …sort of. Granny (voiced by Glen Close, FATAL ATTRACTION) is tied up in the closet (or is she?) The Wolf asks Little Red lots of probing questions about her basket. And as Little Red discovers that The Wolf is not Granny, The Woodsman comes bashing through a window wielding his axe and acting murderous. But is he? The police are called in to investigate this "domestic disturbance" and as Detective Nicky Flippers (voiced by David Ogden Stiers, M*A*S*H) soon discovers, many more strange things are happening than meets the eye. Granny has a triple-G tattoo on her neck and loves extreme sports (paying homage to xXx with Vin Diesel). The Wolf (voiced by Patrick Warburton, SKY HIGH) is actually a reporter researching the recent recipe thefts and feels that Granny and Little Red are at the center of it. The Woodsman (voiced by James Belushi, K-9) is just a Schnitzel-On-A-Stick salesman turned actor trying to find his inner Woodsman. And Little Red is simply a delivery girl who's disenchanted with the world around her.Borrowing from just about every action film out there, HOODWINKED really works. Everything from THE MATRIX to CITY SLICKERS is referenced …and it's done very well. The animation seems nearly old-fashioned and out-of-date, which actually adds a quaint quality to the film; it's not trying too hard to be something it isn't. It isn't FINDING NEMO or SHREK. It couldn't be with a budget only a fraction of what those two animation goliaths cost. This is an independent film (gotta love 'em!), so money is stretched thin. Which leads me to my next point … When the film was put out at theaters (in limited release), it didn't have the marketing budget that Pixar and Disney had for theirs. Professional reviews were cool (to say the least), which leads me to wonder if this movie had been put out by Disney or Pixar what the reviews might have been like. With action figures at Toys-R-Us, computer games, posters, and God only knows what else, the financial ability of the production company might have weighed heavy on the minds of reviewers and how children (and adults) viewed it. Trust me, this IS an issue. Independent films struggle under the shadow of these huge film companies.And here's the thing: this movie is GOOD. It's not perfect by any means, but it's fun, light, engaging, voiced well, animated fine, and uproariously entertaining. I especially enjoyed Twitchy the speed-talking squirrel whose brush with caffeine addiction makes for some of the funnier moments. I also liked Japeth the singing Goat, who takes a ride with Little Red through a mine that looks suspiciously like the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad attraction at Disneyland. A little needling at the Disney corporation maybe? Loved it!And who is the recipe thief, you may be asking. Well that's something you'll HAVE to find out for yourself …and it's worth it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-127

ur7704831

title: An Independent Animation That Deserves Some Attention review: We all know the story of Little Red Riding Hood, right? But with director Cory Edwards at the helm of this fairy tale, things get changed …just a wee bit.Little Red (voiced by Anne Hathaway, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN) wants out of the forest. She's not happy living in such a constrained society. She dreams of flying over the mountains and seeing what lay beyond. But bad things are afoot in the forest. Food establishments are closing due to a rash of recipe thefts. Little Red has to protect her and Granny's recipe book before it disappears as well. But who's behind these thefts? And for what reason? When Little Red arrives at Granny's house, the typical meeting with The Wolf occurs …sort of. Granny (voiced by Glen Close, FATAL ATTRACTION) is tied up in the closet (or is she?) The Wolf asks Little Red lots of probing questions about her basket. And as Little Red discovers that The Wolf is not Granny, The Woodsman comes bashing through a window wielding his axe and acting murderous. But is he? The police are called in to investigate this "domestic disturbance" and as Detective Nicky Flippers (voiced by David Ogden Stiers, M*A*S*H) soon discovers, many more strange things are happening than meets the eye. Granny has a triple-G tattoo on her neck and loves extreme sports (paying homage to xXx with Vin Diesel). The Wolf (voiced by Patrick Warburton, SKY HIGH) is actually a reporter researching the recent recipe thefts and feels that Granny and Little Red are at the center of it. The Woodsman (voiced by James Belushi, K-9) is just a Schnitzel-On-A-Stick salesman turned actor trying to find his inner Woodsman. And Little Red is simply a delivery girl who's disenchanted with the world around her.Borrowing from just about every action film out there, HOODWINKED really works. Everything from THE MATRIX to CITY SLICKERS is referenced …and it's done very well. The animation seems nearly old-fashioned and out-of-date, which actually adds a quaint quality to the film; it's not trying too hard to be something it isn't. It isn't FINDING NEMO or SHREK. It couldn't be with a budget only a fraction of what those two animation goliaths cost. This is an independent film (gotta love 'em!), so money is stretched thin. Which leads me to my next point … When the film was put out at theaters (in limited release), it didn't have the marketing budget that Pixar and Disney had for theirs. Professional reviews were cool (to say the least), which leads me to wonder if this movie had been put out by Disney or Pixar what the reviews might have been like. With action figures at Toys-R-Us, computer games, posters, and God only knows what else, the financial ability of the production company might have weighed heavy on the minds of reviewers and how children (and adults) viewed it. Trust me, this IS an issue. Independent films struggle under the shadow of these huge film companies.And here's the thing: this movie is GOOD. It's not perfect by any means, but it's fun, light, engaging, voiced well, animated fine, and uproariously entertaining. I especially enjoyed Twitchy the speed-talking squirrel whose brush with caffeine addiction makes for some of the funnier moments. I also liked Japeth the singing Goat, who takes a ride with Little Red through a mine that looks suspiciously like the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad attraction at Disneyland. A little needling at the Disney corporation maybe? Loved it!And who is the recipe thief, you may be asking. Well that's something you'll HAVE to find out for yourself …and it's worth it.

"It Lacks Good Animation and Adventure, But Give It Credit For Being Unique."

tt0443536

The "true" story of Little Red Riding Hood, told through four different perspectives from four different characters, Red, Granny, The Wolf, and The Woodsman. These quirky characters are far from the usual suspects. Can the detectives straighten the story out and figure out who the local "Goody Bandit" is?Hoodwinked is one of the new films being released from the Weinstein Company. With top notch animation out there, Hoodwinked, on it's first look, looks to be a couple years behind. It lacks good animation and adventure, but give it credit for being unique. Hoodwinked has star power voices behind it, including Glenn Close, James Belushi, Anthony Anderson, Anne Hathaway and the great Patrick Warburton...who is the perfect choice for any voice work.Hoodwinked is a film that lacks great animation. When you put it up against the likes of Shrek 2, Robots and Finding Nemo. Hoodwinked looks to be in last place. So where does it pick up steam, with the material. It's not falling to the ground funny, or groundbreaking, but it is something different then the normal animated fare. The characters in the story aren't very memorable, but it's the people behind the voices that make them who they are. Warburton is hilarious as The Wolf and stands out in the entire film. Andy Dick, who I normally would find annoying, is actually likable here.The film starts right into the action and moves along pretty fast. Within minutes we are hearing the first story from Red's perspective. All the stories seemed to intertwine very well and made for much more enjoyment. If they did not intertwine at all, I believe the film would be a lot less enjoyable. Everything blended well, although the one character, The Woodsman, voiced by Belushi...awkwardly. Seems to have no purpose in the story what so ever. His story doesn't intertwine, or is funny at all. Are we suppose to laugh at his stupidity?The characters range from goats, to frogs to actual people. Along with The Wolf and Dick's Bunny, the photographer squirrel, who always seems to have a bit to much coffee will entertain the little ones. Hoodwinked has enough jokes for both the kids and adults. The kids will laugh at the zany characters, like the singing goat or the coffee addicted squirrel. Whereas the adults will lean more towards the comedy from Warburton.The writing and strong voice acting is what makes Hoodwinked good. It's nothing amazing and definitely not one to rush to go see, but when you have some time on your hands and want to enjoy a movie with the kids, pick this one up. Pay attention to what happens on the screen because it will come back to play later on in the story. The ending sets up a sequel, and with a higher budget and a little bit more of a punch in an already creative writing team, then Hoodwinked 2 can be a huge success.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-105

ur1878251

title: "It Lacks Good Animation and Adventure, But Give It Credit For Being Unique." review: The "true" story of Little Red Riding Hood, told through four different perspectives from four different characters, Red, Granny, The Wolf, and The Woodsman. These quirky characters are far from the usual suspects. Can the detectives straighten the story out and figure out who the local "Goody Bandit" is?Hoodwinked is one of the new films being released from the Weinstein Company. With top notch animation out there, Hoodwinked, on it's first look, looks to be a couple years behind. It lacks good animation and adventure, but give it credit for being unique. Hoodwinked has star power voices behind it, including Glenn Close, James Belushi, Anthony Anderson, Anne Hathaway and the great Patrick Warburton...who is the perfect choice for any voice work.Hoodwinked is a film that lacks great animation. When you put it up against the likes of Shrek 2, Robots and Finding Nemo. Hoodwinked looks to be in last place. So where does it pick up steam, with the material. It's not falling to the ground funny, or groundbreaking, but it is something different then the normal animated fare. The characters in the story aren't very memorable, but it's the people behind the voices that make them who they are. Warburton is hilarious as The Wolf and stands out in the entire film. Andy Dick, who I normally would find annoying, is actually likable here.The film starts right into the action and moves along pretty fast. Within minutes we are hearing the first story from Red's perspective. All the stories seemed to intertwine very well and made for much more enjoyment. If they did not intertwine at all, I believe the film would be a lot less enjoyable. Everything blended well, although the one character, The Woodsman, voiced by Belushi...awkwardly. Seems to have no purpose in the story what so ever. His story doesn't intertwine, or is funny at all. Are we suppose to laugh at his stupidity?The characters range from goats, to frogs to actual people. Along with The Wolf and Dick's Bunny, the photographer squirrel, who always seems to have a bit to much coffee will entertain the little ones. Hoodwinked has enough jokes for both the kids and adults. The kids will laugh at the zany characters, like the singing goat or the coffee addicted squirrel. Whereas the adults will lean more towards the comedy from Warburton.The writing and strong voice acting is what makes Hoodwinked good. It's nothing amazing and definitely not one to rush to go see, but when you have some time on your hands and want to enjoy a movie with the kids, pick this one up. Pay attention to what happens on the screen because it will come back to play later on in the story. The ending sets up a sequel, and with a higher budget and a little bit more of a punch in an already creative writing team, then Hoodwinked 2 can be a huge success.

Hoodwinked is the best film of the year,

tt0443536

When i saw the trailers and ads for this film. I was very happy with it. So i went on to see it. It was not bad and it is not horrible like some say it really is but that it's a better film.Hoodwinked to say the least is totally a great family film. Made by Weinstien and also this film does not fail to entertain. It's a great film worth seeing on the big screen. Well just like Pixar's Finding Nemo and Toy Story. The story is very good. It explains about how the police track down criminals and suspects involved in stealing something, And of course interrogations about each of the suspects such as The Wolf, The squirrel Twitchy, and more suspects on the case. So of course this film is not all that bad because when i saw it i really enjoyed it.Hoodwinked tells the story about how the secret goody shop's candy was stolen. And how a Candy bandit must have stole it. Meanwhile Red Riding Hood must work with Granny to stop this from happening. But something else also happens. She is being hunted by The Wolf and also the evil rabbit Boingo. So it's up to her and Granny pucket to save the day and stop the candy thief involved.First off what i liked about this film is that the animation is amazing. It looks really nice and of course is very clear. Also i like how good the quality and animation looks for a feature film such as this. It really amazes me that feature films like this have this.Also i like how great the story was. The story is told through and by the Narrator who discusses about what Red does and who she meets along the way on her journey. But also how she meets her enemy The Big Bad Wolf who turns out to be her granny but is not. Because he simply tricked her into thinking he was Granny Pucket. Also the interrogation scenes with the police had the frog as a detective who asks many suspects to tell their part of the story in the crime. So story by story they each tell about what happened and how the shops may have went out of business.The soundtrack sounds great and is composed well in the film. Although all the songs play in order to sometimes be suspenseful or scary. It's not what happens. Although the soundtrack here is awesome despite what some people say about it.The dialogs and jokes in this film make it pretty funny. This film is actually a really funny cartoon and if you have not seen it before. Then you will definitely dig all the funny scenes in it. Like when something funny happens or some scene like when the bunny Boingo wants Keith to change his name to Boris which is really funny indeed. Plus if you don't get what they say or what they really do that makes it funny. Plus the puns in this film is what makes it super funny as if you are watching it. The same goes for how funny each sequence with Red and Granny appears to be.But the real thing here is that a bad guy who was involved in the attempted crime of stealing was the bunny Boingo. First of all he's really funny. Second he is really serious and does not joke around. And third he makes his minions feel really bad. And when he does things like steal from a shop. Then he is making the police want to come after him and because he's the main villain here. All the same cannot be said without him. He was really good and his performance was spectacular in this film.Also there are some references if you did not know like a few of them. There is a scene where Granny Pucket hands Red Riding Hood her cape and says use the cape Red. It refers to the classic Star Wars made by George Lucus like when Darth Vader says to Luke use the force. Now that is something right there.Also if you are a fan of Hoodwinked then you must see this on the big screen. It's an awesome movie, It has a good element, Story, Plot, And of course funny scenes in it and is about a crime. Trust me this film will make you want to see it again.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-256

ur26776899

title: Hoodwinked is the best film of the year, review: When i saw the trailers and ads for this film. I was very happy with it. So i went on to see it. It was not bad and it is not horrible like some say it really is but that it's a better film.Hoodwinked to say the least is totally a great family film. Made by Weinstien and also this film does not fail to entertain. It's a great film worth seeing on the big screen. Well just like Pixar's Finding Nemo and Toy Story. The story is very good. It explains about how the police track down criminals and suspects involved in stealing something, And of course interrogations about each of the suspects such as The Wolf, The squirrel Twitchy, and more suspects on the case. So of course this film is not all that bad because when i saw it i really enjoyed it.Hoodwinked tells the story about how the secret goody shop's candy was stolen. And how a Candy bandit must have stole it. Meanwhile Red Riding Hood must work with Granny to stop this from happening. But something else also happens. She is being hunted by The Wolf and also the evil rabbit Boingo. So it's up to her and Granny pucket to save the day and stop the candy thief involved.First off what i liked about this film is that the animation is amazing. It looks really nice and of course is very clear. Also i like how good the quality and animation looks for a feature film such as this. It really amazes me that feature films like this have this.Also i like how great the story was. The story is told through and by the Narrator who discusses about what Red does and who she meets along the way on her journey. But also how she meets her enemy The Big Bad Wolf who turns out to be her granny but is not. Because he simply tricked her into thinking he was Granny Pucket. Also the interrogation scenes with the police had the frog as a detective who asks many suspects to tell their part of the story in the crime. So story by story they each tell about what happened and how the shops may have went out of business.The soundtrack sounds great and is composed well in the film. Although all the songs play in order to sometimes be suspenseful or scary. It's not what happens. Although the soundtrack here is awesome despite what some people say about it.The dialogs and jokes in this film make it pretty funny. This film is actually a really funny cartoon and if you have not seen it before. Then you will definitely dig all the funny scenes in it. Like when something funny happens or some scene like when the bunny Boingo wants Keith to change his name to Boris which is really funny indeed. Plus if you don't get what they say or what they really do that makes it funny. Plus the puns in this film is what makes it super funny as if you are watching it. The same goes for how funny each sequence with Red and Granny appears to be.But the real thing here is that a bad guy who was involved in the attempted crime of stealing was the bunny Boingo. First of all he's really funny. Second he is really serious and does not joke around. And third he makes his minions feel really bad. And when he does things like steal from a shop. Then he is making the police want to come after him and because he's the main villain here. All the same cannot be said without him. He was really good and his performance was spectacular in this film.Also there are some references if you did not know like a few of them. There is a scene where Granny Pucket hands Red Riding Hood her cape and says use the cape Red. It refers to the classic Star Wars made by George Lucus like when Darth Vader says to Luke use the force. Now that is something right there.Also if you are a fan of Hoodwinked then you must see this on the big screen. It's an awesome movie, It has a good element, Story, Plot, And of course funny scenes in it and is about a crime. Trust me this film will make you want to see it again.

Pleasantly Surprised

tt0443536

Unfortunately, in a world where Pixar and Dreamworks reign supreme with animation, it's easy to look beyond a movie like Hoodwinked. However, I was pleasantly surprised by it. I think the movie benefits from very good choices in voice actors and some great gags throughout the movie. Often, as when one of the characters points out how Red can slip through the handcuffs, the characters are quick to make fun of animation conventions. There are jokes like this throughout the film. Patrick Warburton as the Wolf is on target, as always, which is why he's one of the top voice actors around.Many people will remark on the animation not being up to par with that of Pixar and Dreamworks. When considering that this is from an independent studio and did not have the budget of releases from those studios, it's actually quite a pleasant movie. I also feel that attention is payed to the humor and to how the characters are presented. Given, characterization in this movie is not up to par with a lot of current animation. If there is any complaint, it's that you don't fall in love with the characters. However, I love the squirrel. There is a great gag with him that I will not give away here.I was sad to go the theater and not see more people watching this. I had previously seen the wretched Chicken Little, and knew, for me at least, that this would be tons better. It is. I think it shows promise in what the Weinstein co. will bring us. While not Shrek or Toy Story, it's a humorous yarn with a good amount of laughs.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-34

ur7519840

title: Pleasantly Surprised review: Unfortunately, in a world where Pixar and Dreamworks reign supreme with animation, it's easy to look beyond a movie like Hoodwinked. However, I was pleasantly surprised by it. I think the movie benefits from very good choices in voice actors and some great gags throughout the movie. Often, as when one of the characters points out how Red can slip through the handcuffs, the characters are quick to make fun of animation conventions. There are jokes like this throughout the film. Patrick Warburton as the Wolf is on target, as always, which is why he's one of the top voice actors around.Many people will remark on the animation not being up to par with that of Pixar and Dreamworks. When considering that this is from an independent studio and did not have the budget of releases from those studios, it's actually quite a pleasant movie. I also feel that attention is payed to the humor and to how the characters are presented. Given, characterization in this movie is not up to par with a lot of current animation. If there is any complaint, it's that you don't fall in love with the characters. However, I love the squirrel. There is a great gag with him that I will not give away here.I was sad to go the theater and not see more people watching this. I had previously seen the wretched Chicken Little, and knew, for me at least, that this would be tons better. It is. I think it shows promise in what the Weinstein co. will bring us. While not Shrek or Toy Story, it's a humorous yarn with a good amount of laughs.

A modern twist on a tired fable

tt0443536

I found this film to be undeniably one of the best works of animation i have viewed throughout my life of viewing film.On the trailer alone, one would expect it to be a clichéd, tedious animation, which was churned out by the studio to make a few bucks. However, looks can be deceptive, as i came to discover.For start, yes the animation was not the greatest. However, i would commend the creators for having such courage to create a movie where the dependence is not on the animation, but on the strong script and plot; unlike some other recent disasters *cough cough* Finding Nemo. The attention to detail was there, although the prettiness was lacking, which i found a relief compared to the typical disneyfication almost all animation movies tend to have these days.The story centres around a thief who is stealing all the recipes from all the baker's in the forest causing them to go out of business until, the only recipe book left is that of Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother. The story is largely consumed as to the manic events that led to granny being tied up in the closet, the wolf pretending to be granny, a maniac huntsman crashing through the window, and Little Red caught in the middle of it all. The police then arrive, and each character gives their testimony of what happened during their day, which got them into such a mess.I found the plot to be very witty, although subtle. The way in which the stories interlink was extremely clever, and the script was exceptionally well written; resulting in a tremendously funny film.All in all, a well written, clever little project, with relatively good animation. I would recommend it to both audience's young and old, who will appreciate it in different ways.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-213

ur11639833

title: A modern twist on a tired fable review: I found this film to be undeniably one of the best works of animation i have viewed throughout my life of viewing film.On the trailer alone, one would expect it to be a clichéd, tedious animation, which was churned out by the studio to make a few bucks. However, looks can be deceptive, as i came to discover.For start, yes the animation was not the greatest. However, i would commend the creators for having such courage to create a movie where the dependence is not on the animation, but on the strong script and plot; unlike some other recent disasters *cough cough* Finding Nemo. The attention to detail was there, although the prettiness was lacking, which i found a relief compared to the typical disneyfication almost all animation movies tend to have these days.The story centres around a thief who is stealing all the recipes from all the baker's in the forest causing them to go out of business until, the only recipe book left is that of Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother. The story is largely consumed as to the manic events that led to granny being tied up in the closet, the wolf pretending to be granny, a maniac huntsman crashing through the window, and Little Red caught in the middle of it all. The police then arrive, and each character gives their testimony of what happened during their day, which got them into such a mess.I found the plot to be very witty, although subtle. The way in which the stories interlink was extremely clever, and the script was exceptionally well written; resulting in a tremendously funny film.All in all, a well written, clever little project, with relatively good animation. I would recommend it to both audience's young and old, who will appreciate it in different ways.

Little Red Riding Hood Rides Again!

tt0443536

I know that I'm not the first (and I certainly won't be the last) to say that Hoodwinked could have been a whole lot better than it was.But, all the same, this zany, fast-paced, and, at times, over-the-top re-telling of the Little Red Riding Hood story contained some very funny moments.Though, at times, the story went a little over-board, it was, for the most part, quite entertaining.I liked the characters - Twitchy, the squirrel (especially after he drank some coffee), and, Kirk, the Woodsman (especially when he played the Schnitzel Man).I found Hoodwinked's story to be way too rough and violent for it to be suitable for young children.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-265

ur27361979

title: Little Red Riding Hood Rides Again! review: I know that I'm not the first (and I certainly won't be the last) to say that Hoodwinked could have been a whole lot better than it was.But, all the same, this zany, fast-paced, and, at times, over-the-top re-telling of the Little Red Riding Hood story contained some very funny moments.Though, at times, the story went a little over-board, it was, for the most part, quite entertaining.I liked the characters - Twitchy, the squirrel (especially after he drank some coffee), and, Kirk, the Woodsman (especially when he played the Schnitzel Man).I found Hoodwinked's story to be way too rough and violent for it to be suitable for young children.

Ugly looks mask a decent and funny film - 68%

tt0443536

Animated films have struggled to match Pixar's brilliance since "Toy Story" burst onto the scene way back in 1995. However, there have been signs of cracks appearing - "Cars 2" seems a bit of a misfire and "Brave" didn't set the box office alight either. With endless sequels to "Shrek" and "Ice Age" flooding the cinemas, there is an opening for others to try their hand. So here comes "Hoodwinked!" which attempts to offer viewers something a little different. The question is, is it any good? In truth, this feels like it has some great ideas and even some good giggles but it's undermined by some pretty ropey animation."Hoodwinked!" is a post-modern interpretation of the story of Red Riding Hood. Right at the point when the lumberjack (voiced by James Belushi) bursts through the window, the story freezes as the cops, led by grizzled Chief Grizzly (Xzibit), turn up and arrest everyone. But froggy detective Flippers (David Ogden Stiers) reckons that this is linked to the case of the Goody Bandit who is stealing the recipes of the various treats being cooked in the forest including Granny's (Glenn Close). Interviewing Granny, Red herself (Anne Hathaway) and not forgetting the Wolf (Patrick Warburton) along with Kirk the Woodsman, Flippers begins to paint the real picture behind the goings-on in Granny's house...One of the problems I have with DreamWorks films is that they often cast big-name stars who aren't necessarily the best for the role but thankfully, "Hoodwinked!" avoids such needless showbiz. The performances are actually pretty good - Warburton is brilliantly smooth as the Wolf and stands out with his partner in crime, the hyperactive squirrel Twitchy (Cory Edwards). The story is also a winner - cleverly written and providing a unique angle on a traditional fairy tale, although the mystery of the Goody Bandit isn't that much of a mystery, in all honesty. The problem with this picture is the animation which lacks a lot of the smoothness of Pixar's back catalogue. Take something like "WALL·E" which is so beautifully animated that a lot of the time, you forget you're watching a cartoon. By comparison, "Hoodwinked!" almost looks ugly but I suppose it holds its own against the likes of "Open Season", though that damns "Hoodwinked!" with faint praise.I am disappointed somewhat with "Hoodwinked!" which can't produce the look to match the decent story-writing and direction. There are things to recommend here - the voice acting is of a high standard and the humour works a lot better than the songs which, frankly, felt like filler. But the film can't sustain its momentum and the crude look of the thing means that you never fully buy into it the way you do with Pixar's output. I may sound like the Pixar snob I'm frequently accused of being but the truth is that they produce films of real quality, films that appeal to kids and adults alike, films that don't rely on talking animals fighting for acceptance from their peers, films that look sublime and entertain with almost effortless ease. "Hoodwinked!" is certainly different and well worth a look if you've a young family to entertain during a rainy Bank Holiday but all things considered, I'd rather stick with Woody, Buzz and the rest.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-264

ur3035115

title: Ugly looks mask a decent and funny film - 68% review: Animated films have struggled to match Pixar's brilliance since "Toy Story" burst onto the scene way back in 1995. However, there have been signs of cracks appearing - "Cars 2" seems a bit of a misfire and "Brave" didn't set the box office alight either. With endless sequels to "Shrek" and "Ice Age" flooding the cinemas, there is an opening for others to try their hand. So here comes "Hoodwinked!" which attempts to offer viewers something a little different. The question is, is it any good? In truth, this feels like it has some great ideas and even some good giggles but it's undermined by some pretty ropey animation."Hoodwinked!" is a post-modern interpretation of the story of Red Riding Hood. Right at the point when the lumberjack (voiced by James Belushi) bursts through the window, the story freezes as the cops, led by grizzled Chief Grizzly (Xzibit), turn up and arrest everyone. But froggy detective Flippers (David Ogden Stiers) reckons that this is linked to the case of the Goody Bandit who is stealing the recipes of the various treats being cooked in the forest including Granny's (Glenn Close). Interviewing Granny, Red herself (Anne Hathaway) and not forgetting the Wolf (Patrick Warburton) along with Kirk the Woodsman, Flippers begins to paint the real picture behind the goings-on in Granny's house...One of the problems I have with DreamWorks films is that they often cast big-name stars who aren't necessarily the best for the role but thankfully, "Hoodwinked!" avoids such needless showbiz. The performances are actually pretty good - Warburton is brilliantly smooth as the Wolf and stands out with his partner in crime, the hyperactive squirrel Twitchy (Cory Edwards). The story is also a winner - cleverly written and providing a unique angle on a traditional fairy tale, although the mystery of the Goody Bandit isn't that much of a mystery, in all honesty. The problem with this picture is the animation which lacks a lot of the smoothness of Pixar's back catalogue. Take something like "WALL·E" which is so beautifully animated that a lot of the time, you forget you're watching a cartoon. By comparison, "Hoodwinked!" almost looks ugly but I suppose it holds its own against the likes of "Open Season", though that damns "Hoodwinked!" with faint praise.I am disappointed somewhat with "Hoodwinked!" which can't produce the look to match the decent story-writing and direction. There are things to recommend here - the voice acting is of a high standard and the humour works a lot better than the songs which, frankly, felt like filler. But the film can't sustain its momentum and the crude look of the thing means that you never fully buy into it the way you do with Pixar's output. I may sound like the Pixar snob I'm frequently accused of being but the truth is that they produce films of real quality, films that appeal to kids and adults alike, films that don't rely on talking animals fighting for acceptance from their peers, films that look sublime and entertain with almost effortless ease. "Hoodwinked!" is certainly different and well worth a look if you've a young family to entertain during a rainy Bank Holiday but all things considered, I'd rather stick with Woody, Buzz and the rest.

Fall for the Hood...

tt0443536

Fairy tales have been around for years and always help children to learn certain lessons on life. Now let's say you take a fairytale, retune it for the 21st century, and present a new view on the story, and you end up with a whole load of fun for the entire family.Based upon the tale of Little Red Riding Hood, Hoodwinked retells the original story in a police investigation manner. Beginning in Granny's house, where Red, the Wolf, The Woodsman and Granny in a confrontation, the scene quickly turns to night and police have arrived due to domestic disturbance. From here on, all four characters are interrogated by Nicky Flippers, and of course each has their own perspective on the situation.Many will be struck by Hoodwinked's CG animation: not because it is amazingly good, but because it is rather substandard when compared to any other CG offering in the last 5 years. Not only doe it not look great, but the movements for characters are at times quite static. Still the film does contain some impressive voice-acting: Anne Hathaway (Red) is charming, and Patrick Warburton (The Wolf) is downright memorable.Hoodwinked is all about story, and a very good one at that. It's believable in a fantasy sense, and hilarious to the third degree. Ultimately satirizing Little Red Riding Hood and detective stories, Hoodwinked's humour is not only accessible my minors, but will easily be appreciated by adults too.On the whole, Hoodwinked's low-key animation is a factor which should perhaps be overlooked, because even though it's not particularly the eye candy you would hope, deep down it holds an awesome package of a solid story complimented by some genuinely good humour.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-165

ur5152832

title: Fall for the Hood... review: Fairy tales have been around for years and always help children to learn certain lessons on life. Now let's say you take a fairytale, retune it for the 21st century, and present a new view on the story, and you end up with a whole load of fun for the entire family.Based upon the tale of Little Red Riding Hood, Hoodwinked retells the original story in a police investigation manner. Beginning in Granny's house, where Red, the Wolf, The Woodsman and Granny in a confrontation, the scene quickly turns to night and police have arrived due to domestic disturbance. From here on, all four characters are interrogated by Nicky Flippers, and of course each has their own perspective on the situation.Many will be struck by Hoodwinked's CG animation: not because it is amazingly good, but because it is rather substandard when compared to any other CG offering in the last 5 years. Not only doe it not look great, but the movements for characters are at times quite static. Still the film does contain some impressive voice-acting: Anne Hathaway (Red) is charming, and Patrick Warburton (The Wolf) is downright memorable.Hoodwinked is all about story, and a very good one at that. It's believable in a fantasy sense, and hilarious to the third degree. Ultimately satirizing Little Red Riding Hood and detective stories, Hoodwinked's humour is not only accessible my minors, but will easily be appreciated by adults too.On the whole, Hoodwinked's low-key animation is a factor which should perhaps be overlooked, because even though it's not particularly the eye candy you would hope, deep down it holds an awesome package of a solid story complimented by some genuinely good humour.

Little Red was here...?

tt0443536

What in President Washington was this? Little Red Riding Hood on on LSD. It turns into some sort of mystery as to who is responsible for theft and other things. Each one tells a different story. Its "Who Done It" + "Little Red Riding Hood".The end result is something you wish upon nobody. It sort of confuses the roles of all the characters involved. Somebody is working for somebody else and it just gets kind of silly in a bad way. And the character that ends up being the bad guy is not the one expected originally.Did I like the remix? No. But at least they tried and thats all I can give it. Overall, not very good. "D-"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-234

ur18271419

title: Little Red was here...? review: What in President Washington was this? Little Red Riding Hood on on LSD. It turns into some sort of mystery as to who is responsible for theft and other things. Each one tells a different story. Its "Who Done It" + "Little Red Riding Hood".The end result is something you wish upon nobody. It sort of confuses the roles of all the characters involved. Somebody is working for somebody else and it just gets kind of silly in a bad way. And the character that ends up being the bad guy is not the one expected originally.Did I like the remix? No. But at least they tried and thats all I can give it. Overall, not very good. "D-"

Aiming at all ages

tt0443536

You know the murder mystery scenario: that fairytale look of everything in place when things are not really as they seem. Take Little Red Riding Hood, for example (Hoodwinked! does): a granny who 'kicks fanny', a wolf who is more than just a master of disguises . . . everyone has a secret story to tell and characters at the scene are far from being 'the usual suspects'. Detective Flippers has his work cut out restraining the pigs and interrogating everyone through complex flashbacks.An initial attempt to charge Mr Wolf with 'intention to eat' falls flat. Bandits are the real problem - stealing goodies recipes and putting everyone out of business - but who is the ringleader? Re-telling Little Red Riding Hood to reinterpret motives and personalities but still delivering an animation to keep kids amused is the challenge that Hoodwinked! sets itself, and in a large part it succeeds. The film works on several different levels to address different age groups. In a purely visual way, gags work like any Bugs Bunny cartoon with a minimum of script. The essential storyline, and some careful puns, are spoken at normal speed and are easy to follow for the next age group up. Finally a level of satire is added, often in fast, funny voices or snappy backchat for adults paying enough attention.The whole thing is punctuated by some enchanting songs, including a ukulele-playing goat, and a great turn by Anne Hathaway (Brokeback Mountain, Devil Wears Prada, The Princess Diaries) whose beautiful clear voice as Red Riding Hood is as delightful singing as it is when speaking. (More songs by Miss Hathaway would not have gone amiss.)The faults of Hoodwinked! are that it maybe spreads itself a little too thinly in trying to entertain everyone. In this, it ends up a bit too clever for its own good. The tying up of ends is laborious for those who have followed the plot, whereas the main body of action perhaps takes itself too seriously for younger children. Nevertheless it is an interesting send-up on the well-worn fairytale and an accomplished CGI animation.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-179

ur0064493

title: Aiming at all ages review: You know the murder mystery scenario: that fairytale look of everything in place when things are not really as they seem. Take Little Red Riding Hood, for example (Hoodwinked! does): a granny who 'kicks fanny', a wolf who is more than just a master of disguises . . . everyone has a secret story to tell and characters at the scene are far from being 'the usual suspects'. Detective Flippers has his work cut out restraining the pigs and interrogating everyone through complex flashbacks.An initial attempt to charge Mr Wolf with 'intention to eat' falls flat. Bandits are the real problem - stealing goodies recipes and putting everyone out of business - but who is the ringleader? Re-telling Little Red Riding Hood to reinterpret motives and personalities but still delivering an animation to keep kids amused is the challenge that Hoodwinked! sets itself, and in a large part it succeeds. The film works on several different levels to address different age groups. In a purely visual way, gags work like any Bugs Bunny cartoon with a minimum of script. The essential storyline, and some careful puns, are spoken at normal speed and are easy to follow for the next age group up. Finally a level of satire is added, often in fast, funny voices or snappy backchat for adults paying enough attention.The whole thing is punctuated by some enchanting songs, including a ukulele-playing goat, and a great turn by Anne Hathaway (Brokeback Mountain, Devil Wears Prada, The Princess Diaries) whose beautiful clear voice as Red Riding Hood is as delightful singing as it is when speaking. (More songs by Miss Hathaway would not have gone amiss.)The faults of Hoodwinked! are that it maybe spreads itself a little too thinly in trying to entertain everyone. In this, it ends up a bit too clever for its own good. The tying up of ends is laborious for those who have followed the plot, whereas the main body of action perhaps takes itself too seriously for younger children. Nevertheless it is an interesting send-up on the well-worn fairytale and an accomplished CGI animation.

Hoodwinked!

tt0443536

I knew that this computer animated film was based on the fairytale of Little Red Riding Hood, and I had seen the poster and DVD cover quite a few times, and even with its low rating I was willing to sit through it hoping for some fun. Basically everyone knows the story of Little Red Riding Hood, the young girl in the red hood going to visit to her Granny and being surprised by the Big Bad Wolf, but this is the "true" story of what happened. Told from four perspectives, Red Puckett - Little Red Riding Hood (Anne Hathaway), Wolf W. Wolf - the Big Bad Wolf (Patrick Warburton), Kirk the Woodsman (James Belushi) and Granny (Glenn Close), they are questioned by detective Nicky Flippers (Beauty and the Beast's David Ogden Stiers) about everything that happened and led to the incident in the cottage in the forest. Red explains that she was delivering goods to Granny, but a threat from recipe stealing Goodie Bandit forced her to head a different direction, on her journey she met the Wolf who asked her suspicious questions, and when she arrived at the cottage the Wolf was there dressed in Granny's clothes, the real Granny was tied up in the closet, and the Woodsman burst in through the window. The Wolf explains he is an investigative reporter, he was searching for a lead to identify the Goodie Bandit, believing Red and Granny were culprits, hence questioning Red, but when she escaped him he travelled to the cottage and went undercover as Granny hoping to get the evidence he needed. Kirk the Woodsman reveals he is actually an aspiring actor, being a woodsman was for a part in a commercial, and after having his schnitzel truck robbed by the Goodie Bandit he went to woods to get into character, chopping trees, one falls and he runs in panic from it and avoiding it he smashed through the window of Granny's cottage. Finally Granny explains she is an extreme sports enthusiast, during a ski race she was attacked by the opposing team, they were actually hired by the Goodie Bandit, but Red is unsure whether or not to believe her story. But Nicky Flippers deduces a connection with all four of the stories, they all met the bunny rabbit Boingo (Andy Dick), and that he is the Goodie Bandit, but Boingo has already stolen the recipes of Granny, while the police go the wrong direction Red spots him and follows him to his secret hideout. Boingo plans to put an addictive substance into all recipes he has stolen, and destroy the forest to make way for new real estate to expand his business, but in the end the villain is caught, Kirk found success in a yodelling troupe, and Red, Wolf and Granny become part of Happily, the crime solving organisation. Also starring Anthony Anderson as Detective Bill Stork, Xzibit as Chief Grizzly, Chazz Palminteri as Woolworth, Cory Edwards (also directing) as Twitchy and Benjy Gaither as Japeth the Goat. The voice casting is alright, Hathaway as a karate loving girl, and proving her singing ability long before her Oscar win for Les Misérables, and Close as a feisty old lady, the Pulp Fiction editing is okay, but the songs are naff, the story is underdeveloped and silly, the characters are predictable, and the animation especially looks cheap, the youngest ages probably won't get any excitement from this either, it is a rather rubbish family computer animated comedy. Pretty poor!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-263

ur4248714

title: Hoodwinked! review: I knew that this computer animated film was based on the fairytale of Little Red Riding Hood, and I had seen the poster and DVD cover quite a few times, and even with its low rating I was willing to sit through it hoping for some fun. Basically everyone knows the story of Little Red Riding Hood, the young girl in the red hood going to visit to her Granny and being surprised by the Big Bad Wolf, but this is the "true" story of what happened. Told from four perspectives, Red Puckett - Little Red Riding Hood (Anne Hathaway), Wolf W. Wolf - the Big Bad Wolf (Patrick Warburton), Kirk the Woodsman (James Belushi) and Granny (Glenn Close), they are questioned by detective Nicky Flippers (Beauty and the Beast's David Ogden Stiers) about everything that happened and led to the incident in the cottage in the forest. Red explains that she was delivering goods to Granny, but a threat from recipe stealing Goodie Bandit forced her to head a different direction, on her journey she met the Wolf who asked her suspicious questions, and when she arrived at the cottage the Wolf was there dressed in Granny's clothes, the real Granny was tied up in the closet, and the Woodsman burst in through the window. The Wolf explains he is an investigative reporter, he was searching for a lead to identify the Goodie Bandit, believing Red and Granny were culprits, hence questioning Red, but when she escaped him he travelled to the cottage and went undercover as Granny hoping to get the evidence he needed. Kirk the Woodsman reveals he is actually an aspiring actor, being a woodsman was for a part in a commercial, and after having his schnitzel truck robbed by the Goodie Bandit he went to woods to get into character, chopping trees, one falls and he runs in panic from it and avoiding it he smashed through the window of Granny's cottage. Finally Granny explains she is an extreme sports enthusiast, during a ski race she was attacked by the opposing team, they were actually hired by the Goodie Bandit, but Red is unsure whether or not to believe her story. But Nicky Flippers deduces a connection with all four of the stories, they all met the bunny rabbit Boingo (Andy Dick), and that he is the Goodie Bandit, but Boingo has already stolen the recipes of Granny, while the police go the wrong direction Red spots him and follows him to his secret hideout. Boingo plans to put an addictive substance into all recipes he has stolen, and destroy the forest to make way for new real estate to expand his business, but in the end the villain is caught, Kirk found success in a yodelling troupe, and Red, Wolf and Granny become part of Happily, the crime solving organisation. Also starring Anthony Anderson as Detective Bill Stork, Xzibit as Chief Grizzly, Chazz Palminteri as Woolworth, Cory Edwards (also directing) as Twitchy and Benjy Gaither as Japeth the Goat. The voice casting is alright, Hathaway as a karate loving girl, and proving her singing ability long before her Oscar win for Les Misérables, and Close as a feisty old lady, the Pulp Fiction editing is okay, but the songs are naff, the story is underdeveloped and silly, the characters are predictable, and the animation especially looks cheap, the youngest ages probably won't get any excitement from this either, it is a rather rubbish family computer animated comedy. Pretty poor!

Hoodwinked Is A great Movie for all ages!!

tt0443536

I have watched **Hoodwinked** twice and I think it is the best told animated film I have seen in a long time, I am 44 years old and I thought it was excellent, the animation was top notch and the songs were very appropriate for the material. I just loved the characters and the advancing story line which shows how the mystery was solved. I think this movie will teach kids about deductive reasoning and how not to judge people until all the facts are in. I will not give the story away but I would say that the movie is a very funny masterpiece in line with all the Dreamworks, Pixar and Disney releases and deserves a round of applause(**** Out Of ****)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/reviews-129

ur8137828

title: Hoodwinked Is A great Movie for all ages!! review: I have watched **Hoodwinked** twice and I think it is the best told animated film I have seen in a long time, I am 44 years old and I thought it was excellent, the animation was top notch and the songs were very appropriate for the material. I just loved the characters and the advancing story line which shows how the mystery was solved. I think this movie will teach kids about deductive reasoning and how not to judge people until all the facts are in. I will not give the story away but I would say that the movie is a very funny masterpiece in line with all the Dreamworks, Pixar and Disney releases and deserves a round of applause(**** Out Of ****)

Charming

tt0472160

I didn't know what the heck Penelope was, I only saw the trailer once and it looked very strange, I only saw the poster more than a few times and it again, didn't really catch my interest. But my friends and I decided to check it out and I'm actually glad that I saw it. As silly story that it is and a bit predictable, it's a good movie. Most romantic comedies tick me off because they are so predictable and the it's the same formula each time, Penelope is close to the same formula, but instead adds a fairy tale twist. It has the same moral of the story as most films of having to accept yourself, but Christina Ricci made it more charming and lovable. The cast was perfect and all did a great job, the looked like they had such a good time bringing this story to life.Penelope seems like the girl that should be living the high life, a wealthy family, part of royalty, but her life isn't perfect. Due to a shallow mistake her ancestor made, a witch cursed a face of a pig onto the next born daughter, that happens to be Penelope who apparently has to marry a man of royal blood to break the curse. But since she's not the prettiest face on the planet, every man runs from her, but Max, a spy sent by a photographer, Max learns that Penelope is a beautiful soul. Penelope runs away though to find her freedom and instead finds herself and how wonderful she truly is.Penelope is a very cute film, I was very impressed with the story, there were some things I was a little disappointed in, like how they just abandoned some characters for no reason. But I think it's hard to fit it in a short film, still I think it could have been edited better. But Christina Ricci was a great choice for Penelope, even though she's still oddly enough not the ugliest woman I've ever seen with the nose, she did a good job and held her own well. Reese Witherspoon, small role, but she was so charming. I would recommend Penelope, it's a cute film and was a lot of fun to watch.7/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-29

ur1293485

title: Charming review: I didn't know what the heck Penelope was, I only saw the trailer once and it looked very strange, I only saw the poster more than a few times and it again, didn't really catch my interest. But my friends and I decided to check it out and I'm actually glad that I saw it. As silly story that it is and a bit predictable, it's a good movie. Most romantic comedies tick me off because they are so predictable and the it's the same formula each time, Penelope is close to the same formula, but instead adds a fairy tale twist. It has the same moral of the story as most films of having to accept yourself, but Christina Ricci made it more charming and lovable. The cast was perfect and all did a great job, the looked like they had such a good time bringing this story to life.Penelope seems like the girl that should be living the high life, a wealthy family, part of royalty, but her life isn't perfect. Due to a shallow mistake her ancestor made, a witch cursed a face of a pig onto the next born daughter, that happens to be Penelope who apparently has to marry a man of royal blood to break the curse. But since she's not the prettiest face on the planet, every man runs from her, but Max, a spy sent by a photographer, Max learns that Penelope is a beautiful soul. Penelope runs away though to find her freedom and instead finds herself and how wonderful she truly is.Penelope is a very cute film, I was very impressed with the story, there were some things I was a little disappointed in, like how they just abandoned some characters for no reason. But I think it's hard to fit it in a short film, still I think it could have been edited better. But Christina Ricci was a great choice for Penelope, even though she's still oddly enough not the ugliest woman I've ever seen with the nose, she did a good job and held her own well. Reese Witherspoon, small role, but she was so charming. I would recommend Penelope, it's a cute film and was a lot of fun to watch.7/10

a fairy tale about a pig faced girl who learns to love herself..

tt0472160

despite the efforts of her mother. Penelope was born with a family curse, the nose and ears of a pig. Legend says that in order to break the curse, one of her own must love her. They assume she must marry another blue blood like the family she comes from. Her mother faked her death in order to keep her hidden from the world. But when Penelope becomes of age, her mother begins bringing potential husbands. She tells Penelope to hide behind a mirror while she interviews potential suitors, but every time she shows her face, they run away in fear. A pint sized reporter hears of the pig faced girl and he wants a picture. He hires Max, a blue blood that has wasted his inheritance on gambling. Of course Max and Penelope hit if off,and he just doesn't run away after seeing her. But Max has a secret and he doesn't think he's good enough for Penelope. Penelope runs away from home and becomes independent for the first time in her life. Will she learn that her nose isn't so bad after all?Meanwhile, Edward, who comes from a wealthy family, proposes to Penelope in order to restore his family image. He really can't stand her. Will Penelope say I DO as her mother wants? Her mother tells her this is the only chance to break the curse. But is it? I usually like Christina Ricci in anything, and this is no exception. She was entertaining as Penelope as well as James Mcavoy as Max.FINAL VERDICT: I thought this was a cute film. It's a good pick for the young teen crowd.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-75

ur1773414

title: a fairy tale about a pig faced girl who learns to love herself.. review: despite the efforts of her mother. Penelope was born with a family curse, the nose and ears of a pig. Legend says that in order to break the curse, one of her own must love her. They assume she must marry another blue blood like the family she comes from. Her mother faked her death in order to keep her hidden from the world. But when Penelope becomes of age, her mother begins bringing potential husbands. She tells Penelope to hide behind a mirror while she interviews potential suitors, but every time she shows her face, they run away in fear. A pint sized reporter hears of the pig faced girl and he wants a picture. He hires Max, a blue blood that has wasted his inheritance on gambling. Of course Max and Penelope hit if off,and he just doesn't run away after seeing her. But Max has a secret and he doesn't think he's good enough for Penelope. Penelope runs away from home and becomes independent for the first time in her life. Will she learn that her nose isn't so bad after all?Meanwhile, Edward, who comes from a wealthy family, proposes to Penelope in order to restore his family image. He really can't stand her. Will Penelope say I DO as her mother wants? Her mother tells her this is the only chance to break the curse. But is it? I usually like Christina Ricci in anything, and this is no exception. She was entertaining as Penelope as well as James Mcavoy as Max.FINAL VERDICT: I thought this was a cute film. It's a good pick for the young teen crowd.

Sympathetic and entertaining,but the whole is not completely satisfactory

tt0472160

The film Penelope has good intentions at offering us a picturesque fable which is full of colorful characters who learn valuable life lessons.But the main problem from this film is that the "Burton-esque" aesthetic from this film and its screenplay cannot capture all the magic the story requires,so the final experience is sympathetic and entertaining,but not completely satisfactory.The best element from Penelope is definitely the cast.Christina Ricci shows a lot of professionalism with her role,so she results credible.James McAvoy brings an expressive and detailed performance which makes us to get interested in his character.The great Peter Dinklage is perfect as the villain.And,finally,we also have solid performances from Reese Witherspoon and Russell Brand.Director Mark Palansky made a solid work on all the technical aspects from this movie.But,this film has various fails.The screenplay feels a little bit artificial and it has some moments which do not add anything relevant to the story.Besides,I think this film is a bit longer than what it needs to be,so near the ending,it feels a little bit tiring.In spite of those fails,I liked Penélope.It is not too memorable,but it is a good option for spending time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-81

ur6216723

title: Sympathetic and entertaining,but the whole is not completely satisfactory review: The film Penelope has good intentions at offering us a picturesque fable which is full of colorful characters who learn valuable life lessons.But the main problem from this film is that the "Burton-esque" aesthetic from this film and its screenplay cannot capture all the magic the story requires,so the final experience is sympathetic and entertaining,but not completely satisfactory.The best element from Penelope is definitely the cast.Christina Ricci shows a lot of professionalism with her role,so she results credible.James McAvoy brings an expressive and detailed performance which makes us to get interested in his character.The great Peter Dinklage is perfect as the villain.And,finally,we also have solid performances from Reese Witherspoon and Russell Brand.Director Mark Palansky made a solid work on all the technical aspects from this movie.But,this film has various fails.The screenplay feels a little bit artificial and it has some moments which do not add anything relevant to the story.Besides,I think this film is a bit longer than what it needs to be,so near the ending,it feels a little bit tiring.In spite of those fails,I liked Penélope.It is not too memorable,but it is a good option for spending time.

A Movie You Love In Spite of Its Flaws

tt0472160

"Penelope" is a flawed movie – the set design and costumes are not first-rate, and the story is told in a herky-jerky, fits-and-starts fashion. And yet I love "Penelope" – for its fine performances, deep truths, and genuine fairy tale quality."Penelope," through a curse placed on her snobbish, upper class ancestors by a spurned housemaid, is born with the nose and ears of a pig. The special effects here are great; Christina Ricci's nose does look convincingly porcine. The curse stipulates that if and when a member of the upper classes loves Penelope exactly for who she is, the curse will be lifted and Penelope will be granted fully human features.Penelope's desperate parents, Catherine O'Hara and Richard E. Grant, lure upper class men to their home, in the hopes that one will love and marry Penelope, who chats with them through a microphone while hidden behind a mirror. Once these men confront Penelope, they run.Peter Dinklage plays an oddly appealing dwarf paparazzo. He bribes Max, James McAvoy, into sneaking a camera into the house and photographing Penelope. Max takes the bribe because he is down on his luck. As he chats with Penelope, though, some bond is formed.As with a real fairy tale, deep truths are dramatized in this movie about fantastic characters. Primarily, "Penelope" is about men's insistence that women be physically perfect to be worthy of love. That a film takes on this insidious aspect of male misogyny is to be commended. "Penelope" also addresses the perils of a celebrity culture that demands that females reveal all. Like a true folklore heroine – Cinderella, say – Penelope experiences love not while splaying herself out for inspection, but while modestly disguising herself. The film's ultimate truth can't be revealed here, because that would spoil the plot, but it is moving enough that it brought tears to my eyes.Christina Ricci is terrific as Penelope. She's believably cynical when she needs to be, and believably vulnerable and naïve at the right moments.James McAvoy, as Max, is simply one of the most exciting new male stars in films today. More, more, more James McAvoy, please.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-27

ur2366009

title: A Movie You Love In Spite of Its Flaws review: "Penelope" is a flawed movie – the set design and costumes are not first-rate, and the story is told in a herky-jerky, fits-and-starts fashion. And yet I love "Penelope" – for its fine performances, deep truths, and genuine fairy tale quality."Penelope," through a curse placed on her snobbish, upper class ancestors by a spurned housemaid, is born with the nose and ears of a pig. The special effects here are great; Christina Ricci's nose does look convincingly porcine. The curse stipulates that if and when a member of the upper classes loves Penelope exactly for who she is, the curse will be lifted and Penelope will be granted fully human features.Penelope's desperate parents, Catherine O'Hara and Richard E. Grant, lure upper class men to their home, in the hopes that one will love and marry Penelope, who chats with them through a microphone while hidden behind a mirror. Once these men confront Penelope, they run.Peter Dinklage plays an oddly appealing dwarf paparazzo. He bribes Max, James McAvoy, into sneaking a camera into the house and photographing Penelope. Max takes the bribe because he is down on his luck. As he chats with Penelope, though, some bond is formed.As with a real fairy tale, deep truths are dramatized in this movie about fantastic characters. Primarily, "Penelope" is about men's insistence that women be physically perfect to be worthy of love. That a film takes on this insidious aspect of male misogyny is to be commended. "Penelope" also addresses the perils of a celebrity culture that demands that females reveal all. Like a true folklore heroine – Cinderella, say – Penelope experiences love not while splaying herself out for inspection, but while modestly disguising herself. The film's ultimate truth can't be revealed here, because that would spoil the plot, but it is moving enough that it brought tears to my eyes.Christina Ricci is terrific as Penelope. She's believably cynical when she needs to be, and believably vulnerable and naïve at the right moments.James McAvoy, as Max, is simply one of the most exciting new male stars in films today. More, more, more James McAvoy, please.

A multifarious oddity,

tt0472160

"Penelope" is a multifarious oddity . It might be a flowery fairytale from the surface, but it tends to paint some subduing and gritty pictures, especially when we see the hero (James McAcvoy) constantly gamble away his money at a shady bar. Also, there are witches and curses in the beginning, but as the plot untangles, we are stuck witnessing a world where there are no wireless phones and headlines are downsized to report petty things like 'a girl who looks like a pig says "hello"'. Now that I mention it, the story is about a girl who has the snout of a pig. Funny thing, because at the movie's inception, we are made to believe that she also has the ears of a pig, but the movie conveniently decides to not show us that part. Anyways, the reason why I keep on mentioning the beginning is because that's the only part of the movie I truly enjoyed. The beginning is so different than the middle and the end. Well, that's because the upcoming love story is too awkward and the background characters (Reese Witherspoon and that other bar guy) are too random and unnecessary. Penelope would not seem that atrocious in our world, where I am sure there are people with more severe and turgid facial problems. So excuse me when I say, that this movie does not cut it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-57

ur13593855

title: A multifarious oddity, review: "Penelope" is a multifarious oddity . It might be a flowery fairytale from the surface, but it tends to paint some subduing and gritty pictures, especially when we see the hero (James McAcvoy) constantly gamble away his money at a shady bar. Also, there are witches and curses in the beginning, but as the plot untangles, we are stuck witnessing a world where there are no wireless phones and headlines are downsized to report petty things like 'a girl who looks like a pig says "hello"'. Now that I mention it, the story is about a girl who has the snout of a pig. Funny thing, because at the movie's inception, we are made to believe that she also has the ears of a pig, but the movie conveniently decides to not show us that part. Anyways, the reason why I keep on mentioning the beginning is because that's the only part of the movie I truly enjoyed. The beginning is so different than the middle and the end. Well, that's because the upcoming love story is too awkward and the background characters (Reese Witherspoon and that other bar guy) are too random and unnecessary. Penelope would not seem that atrocious in our world, where I am sure there are people with more severe and turgid facial problems. So excuse me when I say, that this movie does not cut it.

In the world we live, a beautiful girl is born, with a pig nose, Penelope.

tt0472160

I love this movie. Penelope is soooooo undervalued. I gave it a 7 because it's sooooo good. I don't offer up 7s for bad movies; this movie earned it. And allow me to say that this is really a perfect 10 in all the ways that matter. Penelope is one of those special movies that strives outside of the world of being critically critiqued by critics. You critics can tear this movie down all u want, but you'll only make yourself look like fools. It is hate-proof. It's a unique modern day fairy tale with a beautiful take on love. Penelope has the right spirit, making it widely beloved, and soooo pretty.OK, great. Got all that out of the way. That, all that; all that stuff about good vs bad and right vs wrong and pretty vs ugly... Now it's time to have fun, now that you know Penelope is a terrific movie. Now's the time. Kick back, take off your shoes and relax your feet as we party on down to the disco beat.*(Christina Ricci) - Sooooo hot. I see your pig nose, Penelope, and honestly, I don't care. I don't care because past the piggy little nose is a set of the most beautiful eyes I've laid eyes on. Thank you, Christina. I don't care because past the hoggy little snout is a pair of the most kissable lips I've ever wanted to kiss. And I do want to kiss them, Christina; I want to kiss them so bad. I can't care at all because past that swiney little sniffer, is a woman I would die for. I am madly in love with Christina Ricci. She's just my type; she's so my type that I'm gonna tell you all about it. Penelope doesn't even look ugly, at all, and when I look at her I hardly even notice that oinker schnoz because I can't get enough of the beautiful woman behind it, Christina Ricci, Penelope. All those guys who see Penelope and freak out and go running because of her looks are super losers. Super, super losers. Penelope is so sweet, that what does her looks even matter. I love you, Christina. I ain't playing. You really are the one that I love. I'm so sincere! Christina you consistently make films that find a home in people's hearts, regardless of what soured critics have to say. You are a bigger movie star than you may even realize. Some actresses make such prestigious, acclaimed films but guess what, I seen the movie once, recognize it as really nice, then don't care too much see it again. Christina, you make movies that are important to people that I wish to see over and over again. You're just one of those girls. Are you single? I hope so. I love you, babe. You're big time. You almost come across as a girl who would be into strange, weird things, like obsessed, but you really seem like a totally down and totally down to Earth kinda girl. I love that. There's more to you that meets the eye; I would love to know that deep side of you. God, would I. Big time. I can't find the words here anymore so let me just steal the lyrical love of Barry White. Christina, I just can't get enough of your love, babe. When you read it, sing it in your head like Barry White. OK, I'll stop gushing major, until we meet again. I'm a fan.*(James McAvoy) - Hahahaha what can I say, I just went to town on Miss Ricci, haha. I have no idea anymore. James, I love you buddy; you were born to be a star, but less self centeredness and more mindfulness of others will entirely help you in your career and way more importantly, your life. Forgive me for being so.....nosey. I only say that because I see it, and I like you so much on screen. I really do. I don't think it's a bad thing for you, yet, but it has the potential to be. Now, go out there and be somebody James! You're so good looking I can hardly even blame you. Mister McAvoy, your sense of entitlement has led you to where you are today, and that's a good thing. Going forward, you are going to have to earn it. Just kidding! You're too cute, you can get away with anything!*(Catherine O'Hara) - You are so funny. But you know that. I think you're one of the funniest persons imaginable. You're very pretty too. But you know that. You're appreciated dearly. Catherine, you know; you're smart. You know that. I know you know, did you know that? I knew you did.*(Reese Witherspoon) - Reese, this is neither the time or the place. I mean that. I really love you, but I gotta get some sleep. Goodnight.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-106

ur23426612

title: In the world we live, a beautiful girl is born, with a pig nose, Penelope. review: I love this movie. Penelope is soooooo undervalued. I gave it a 7 because it's sooooo good. I don't offer up 7s for bad movies; this movie earned it. And allow me to say that this is really a perfect 10 in all the ways that matter. Penelope is one of those special movies that strives outside of the world of being critically critiqued by critics. You critics can tear this movie down all u want, but you'll only make yourself look like fools. It is hate-proof. It's a unique modern day fairy tale with a beautiful take on love. Penelope has the right spirit, making it widely beloved, and soooo pretty.OK, great. Got all that out of the way. That, all that; all that stuff about good vs bad and right vs wrong and pretty vs ugly... Now it's time to have fun, now that you know Penelope is a terrific movie. Now's the time. Kick back, take off your shoes and relax your feet as we party on down to the disco beat.*(Christina Ricci) - Sooooo hot. I see your pig nose, Penelope, and honestly, I don't care. I don't care because past the piggy little nose is a set of the most beautiful eyes I've laid eyes on. Thank you, Christina. I don't care because past the hoggy little snout is a pair of the most kissable lips I've ever wanted to kiss. And I do want to kiss them, Christina; I want to kiss them so bad. I can't care at all because past that swiney little sniffer, is a woman I would die for. I am madly in love with Christina Ricci. She's just my type; she's so my type that I'm gonna tell you all about it. Penelope doesn't even look ugly, at all, and when I look at her I hardly even notice that oinker schnoz because I can't get enough of the beautiful woman behind it, Christina Ricci, Penelope. All those guys who see Penelope and freak out and go running because of her looks are super losers. Super, super losers. Penelope is so sweet, that what does her looks even matter. I love you, Christina. I ain't playing. You really are the one that I love. I'm so sincere! Christina you consistently make films that find a home in people's hearts, regardless of what soured critics have to say. You are a bigger movie star than you may even realize. Some actresses make such prestigious, acclaimed films but guess what, I seen the movie once, recognize it as really nice, then don't care too much see it again. Christina, you make movies that are important to people that I wish to see over and over again. You're just one of those girls. Are you single? I hope so. I love you, babe. You're big time. You almost come across as a girl who would be into strange, weird things, like obsessed, but you really seem like a totally down and totally down to Earth kinda girl. I love that. There's more to you that meets the eye; I would love to know that deep side of you. God, would I. Big time. I can't find the words here anymore so let me just steal the lyrical love of Barry White. Christina, I just can't get enough of your love, babe. When you read it, sing it in your head like Barry White. OK, I'll stop gushing major, until we meet again. I'm a fan.*(James McAvoy) - Hahahaha what can I say, I just went to town on Miss Ricci, haha. I have no idea anymore. James, I love you buddy; you were born to be a star, but less self centeredness and more mindfulness of others will entirely help you in your career and way more importantly, your life. Forgive me for being so.....nosey. I only say that because I see it, and I like you so much on screen. I really do. I don't think it's a bad thing for you, yet, but it has the potential to be. Now, go out there and be somebody James! You're so good looking I can hardly even blame you. Mister McAvoy, your sense of entitlement has led you to where you are today, and that's a good thing. Going forward, you are going to have to earn it. Just kidding! You're too cute, you can get away with anything!*(Catherine O'Hara) - You are so funny. But you know that. I think you're one of the funniest persons imaginable. You're very pretty too. But you know that. You're appreciated dearly. Catherine, you know; you're smart. You know that. I know you know, did you know that? I knew you did.*(Reese Witherspoon) - Reese, this is neither the time or the place. I mean that. I really love you, but I gotta get some sleep. Goodnight.

Such a very cute movie

tt0472160

Penelope was a very good and cute movie all at the same time. This review is coming from a guys point of view. When I had first seen the trailer to this movie I was expecting just what I got out of this movie when I had seen it. This movie is not disappointing at all. This movie to me like inspired me to actually not be afraid of the world we live in. It showed you to just get out there and live life to the fullest before it's to late. This movie had an excellent story to it because no matter what you look like it a guy should still be able to fall in love with you. Christina Ricci did a great job playing a girl who was born with a pig snout for a nose. The guy that was meant for her did an excellent job acting as well. I thought they made a cute couple for each other. The direction it was going was to not be afraid of the world and to be yourself. Overall this was a very cute and at some scenes funny. So I think that this movie is for teenagers mostly. So just give it a chance and go see it especially if you like cute romantic teen movies. James McAvoy was great playing the guy who liked Penelope. I don't want to give anything away though so just go see it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-39

ur19005144

title: Such a very cute movie review: Penelope was a very good and cute movie all at the same time. This review is coming from a guys point of view. When I had first seen the trailer to this movie I was expecting just what I got out of this movie when I had seen it. This movie is not disappointing at all. This movie to me like inspired me to actually not be afraid of the world we live in. It showed you to just get out there and live life to the fullest before it's to late. This movie had an excellent story to it because no matter what you look like it a guy should still be able to fall in love with you. Christina Ricci did a great job playing a girl who was born with a pig snout for a nose. The guy that was meant for her did an excellent job acting as well. I thought they made a cute couple for each other. The direction it was going was to not be afraid of the world and to be yourself. Overall this was a very cute and at some scenes funny. So I think that this movie is for teenagers mostly. So just give it a chance and go see it especially if you like cute romantic teen movies. James McAvoy was great playing the guy who liked Penelope. I don't want to give anything away though so just go see it.

Surprisingly good

tt0472160

I am forced to admit, this is a rare 'feel-good' romantic comedy I enjoyed. Guilty pleasure people!! The story is a mix of a modern day romcom/fairtytale, and is quite predictable. However the characters are all fun to watch, especially Catherine ...(read more)O Hara; Peter Dinklage & Simon Woods were good in their short yet entertaining roles. It was also nice to see Mcavoy in this sort of a genre, and I thought he did quite well with the American accent. His versatility is quite evident from the movies he has been a part of.Moreover, the movie moves along at a good pace never losing the audience, even though some parts may seem a bit overdone or rushed. But it's all forgivable in my opinion.Overall, all credit to Palansky for making this a well-executed sweet/cute (I didn't say that, ahem!) romcom a very good watch.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-40

ur12939701

title: Surprisingly good review: I am forced to admit, this is a rare 'feel-good' romantic comedy I enjoyed. Guilty pleasure people!! The story is a mix of a modern day romcom/fairtytale, and is quite predictable. However the characters are all fun to watch, especially Catherine ...(read more)O Hara; Peter Dinklage & Simon Woods were good in their short yet entertaining roles. It was also nice to see Mcavoy in this sort of a genre, and I thought he did quite well with the American accent. His versatility is quite evident from the movies he has been a part of.Moreover, the movie moves along at a good pace never losing the audience, even though some parts may seem a bit overdone or rushed. But it's all forgivable in my opinion.Overall, all credit to Palansky for making this a well-executed sweet/cute (I didn't say that, ahem!) romcom a very good watch.

blandly predictable modern-day fairy tale

tt0472160

Due to a curse that was placed on her family in the 19th Century, an otherwise attractive British high society blueblood by the name of Penelope Wilhern was born with pigs' ears and a snout. This, as one would imagine, has put something of a damper on the poor girl's dating life, since prospective romantic partners invariably run screaming out of the room the moment they first lay eyes on her. Enter Johnny, a scruffy, down-on-his-luck compulsive gambler hired by an investigative reporter to infiltrate Penelope's house to see if the rumors of a pig-nosed girl residing therein are indeed true. But can this principled cad help falling in love with the "real," "beautiful" Penelope who lies just beneath the surface of this grotesquely swinish exterior? (Though, if truth be told, if you're going to be stuck going through life with a pig-nose, you could do a lot worse than the one Penelope is forced to put up with here). As to "Penelope" itself, it doesn't bode well for any film when most of the minor players have English accents and most of the major ones do not - especially when, without exception, everyone is ostensibly playing a British character. Beyond that, this "beauty is only skin deep" parable hasn't been accorded the wit or imagination it would actually need to be successful. The fairy tale ambiance has been reasonably well adapted to the modern scene, but the narrative arc that comes along with it could hardly be more transparent or predictable. In addition, the movie, written by Leslie Caveny and directed by Mark Palansky, is replete with overwrought slapstick scenes of people screaming, running, diving out of windows, etc. at the mere sight of Penelope's face - scenes that, quite frankly, feel as if they were lifted straight out of an episode of "The Munsters." Still, an appealing cast, made up of the likes of Christina Ricci, James McAvoy, Reese Witherspoon, Peter Dinklage, Richard E. Grant, Catherine O'Hara, and Simon Woods, at least makes the movie watchable - if you're in the mood for this sort of thing, that is.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-84

ur0375636

title: blandly predictable modern-day fairy tale review: Due to a curse that was placed on her family in the 19th Century, an otherwise attractive British high society blueblood by the name of Penelope Wilhern was born with pigs' ears and a snout. This, as one would imagine, has put something of a damper on the poor girl's dating life, since prospective romantic partners invariably run screaming out of the room the moment they first lay eyes on her. Enter Johnny, a scruffy, down-on-his-luck compulsive gambler hired by an investigative reporter to infiltrate Penelope's house to see if the rumors of a pig-nosed girl residing therein are indeed true. But can this principled cad help falling in love with the "real," "beautiful" Penelope who lies just beneath the surface of this grotesquely swinish exterior? (Though, if truth be told, if you're going to be stuck going through life with a pig-nose, you could do a lot worse than the one Penelope is forced to put up with here). As to "Penelope" itself, it doesn't bode well for any film when most of the minor players have English accents and most of the major ones do not - especially when, without exception, everyone is ostensibly playing a British character. Beyond that, this "beauty is only skin deep" parable hasn't been accorded the wit or imagination it would actually need to be successful. The fairy tale ambiance has been reasonably well adapted to the modern scene, but the narrative arc that comes along with it could hardly be more transparent or predictable. In addition, the movie, written by Leslie Caveny and directed by Mark Palansky, is replete with overwrought slapstick scenes of people screaming, running, diving out of windows, etc. at the mere sight of Penelope's face - scenes that, quite frankly, feel as if they were lifted straight out of an episode of "The Munsters." Still, an appealing cast, made up of the likes of Christina Ricci, James McAvoy, Reese Witherspoon, Peter Dinklage, Richard E. Grant, Catherine O'Hara, and Simon Woods, at least makes the movie watchable - if you're in the mood for this sort of thing, that is.

Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beholder!

tt0472160

"Penelope" was in a league entirely of its own. I haven't seen a movie this honest and sweet in such a long time. There were so many lessons to be gained from this movie, the most important of which is that it doesn't matter what you look like on the outside but who you are inside that truly counts. And all you have to do is find that one other person who can look past all the flaws and imperfections and see true beauty. Christina Ricci did an outstanding job in her role as "Penelope." She really made it her own. She had this innocence about her and such inner strength. James McAvoy was absolutely mesmerizing and continues to please and amaze me in every production that he is a part of. He was so charming as the mysterious, care free "Max" who sets out to win Penelope's heart. In the beginning he agrees to try and get close to her only so he can get a picture of her for the tabloids, but in the end he falls in love with her. You can see how much he changes after each conversation. I knew it all along but I was so glad that he did the right thing. And you finally find out later that even though he wanted to marry her he couldn't let himself because he thought that he couldn't give her what she really wanted. So he let her go, which makes you fall for him even more because that is the greatest kind of love- sacrifice. But everything was made right in the end. And once again he delivered another dreamy, weak in the knees kiss! Besides that part, I think my favorite scene was where he's sitting playing the piano and she finally comes out and lays her hands on top of his and they play the song together. But I loved the ending too! James McAvoy just makes your heart melt. He has the most gorgeous blue eyes that just seep right into you. All in all, it is a lovely story about falling in love for the first time and finding out who you are in the meantime, and realizing that that person is truly beautiful. "Penelope" truly tugs on your heartstrings.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-20

ur18177513

title: Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beholder! review: "Penelope" was in a league entirely of its own. I haven't seen a movie this honest and sweet in such a long time. There were so many lessons to be gained from this movie, the most important of which is that it doesn't matter what you look like on the outside but who you are inside that truly counts. And all you have to do is find that one other person who can look past all the flaws and imperfections and see true beauty. Christina Ricci did an outstanding job in her role as "Penelope." She really made it her own. She had this innocence about her and such inner strength. James McAvoy was absolutely mesmerizing and continues to please and amaze me in every production that he is a part of. He was so charming as the mysterious, care free "Max" who sets out to win Penelope's heart. In the beginning he agrees to try and get close to her only so he can get a picture of her for the tabloids, but in the end he falls in love with her. You can see how much he changes after each conversation. I knew it all along but I was so glad that he did the right thing. And you finally find out later that even though he wanted to marry her he couldn't let himself because he thought that he couldn't give her what she really wanted. So he let her go, which makes you fall for him even more because that is the greatest kind of love- sacrifice. But everything was made right in the end. And once again he delivered another dreamy, weak in the knees kiss! Besides that part, I think my favorite scene was where he's sitting playing the piano and she finally comes out and lays her hands on top of his and they play the song together. But I loved the ending too! James McAvoy just makes your heart melt. He has the most gorgeous blue eyes that just seep right into you. All in all, it is a lovely story about falling in love for the first time and finding out who you are in the meantime, and realizing that that person is truly beautiful. "Penelope" truly tugs on your heartstrings.

A Nice Quirky Princess Tale

tt0472160

A modern romantic tale about a young aristocratic heiress (Christina Ricci) born under a curse that can only be broken when she finds true love with "one who will love her faithfully."My first thought was that the pig nose does not even look that bad, so I like the explanation of why surgery is impossible... I am sure everyone's first thought was that this could be a simple fix.Peter Dinklage is great here as a one-eyed reporter, and even Reese Witherspoon is at her least annoying (not to mention she is the one who allegedly got Ricci on board, making the whole film worthwhile).Rotten Tomatoes says, "though Penelope has a charming cast and an appealing message, it ultimately suffers from faulty narrative and sloppy direction." I guess I thought nothing one way or the other on the direction, but the narrative was fine. I liked it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-101

ur1234929

title: A Nice Quirky Princess Tale review: A modern romantic tale about a young aristocratic heiress (Christina Ricci) born under a curse that can only be broken when she finds true love with "one who will love her faithfully."My first thought was that the pig nose does not even look that bad, so I like the explanation of why surgery is impossible... I am sure everyone's first thought was that this could be a simple fix.Peter Dinklage is great here as a one-eyed reporter, and even Reese Witherspoon is at her least annoying (not to mention she is the one who allegedly got Ricci on board, making the whole film worthwhile).Rotten Tomatoes says, "though Penelope has a charming cast and an appealing message, it ultimately suffers from faulty narrative and sloppy direction." I guess I thought nothing one way or the other on the direction, but the narrative was fine. I liked it.

Beautifully Fantastical

tt0472160

In the first ten minutes of this film, I kept thinking, "Hmm...this looks like a Tim Burton film." And the look is very fantastic in the Burtonesque style, but it lacks the darkness usually associated with the look of Burton's films. Penelope is a light-hearted flick that is infinitely appropriate for your kids.This film is a fantasy set outside of recognizable space and time. The city in which Penelope lives is an interesting mixture of London and Manhattan, and people speak in both American and English accents, and no one ever questions it. It appears that the likable characters, the "Good Guys", if you will, all speak American and the "Bad Guys" are all decidedly British.Ricci is a likable heroine. She's bright and spunky despite her sheltered existence. When she goes out into the world, she's a babe in the woods, and Annie (producer Reese Witherspoon) is there to give her the grand tour. Witherspoon is sprightly and likable, but I kept thinking the part was better suited to perennial scene-stealer Judy Greer.And I cannot say enough about James McAvoy, who plays Penelope's love-interest, Max. I've known who the Scottish actor was since long before The Chronicles of Narnia and The Last King of Scotland. He brings out his American accent for the first time since Band of Brothers, and is absolutely flawless. While he basically looks like a cuter version of Ringo Starr from Sergeant Pepper, he really does rock the hat and scarf look as well as Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge. His character's own struggle is as moving as Penelope's and more relatable.The supporting cast is also stunning. Catherine O'Hara plays a mom that strongly puts me in mind of Mrs. Bennet from Pride and Prejudice. She's selfish, but you still feel for her, because you see she's just trying to do what she thinks is best for her daughter. Peter Dinklage plays a tabloid reporter who's been looking for Penelope since she was born, and he goes on his own emotional journey through the film, and, in the end, plays in integral part in the central romance. Simon Woods does a one-eighty from his lovable role in Pride and Prejudice, and plays a snobby, blue-blooded git to perfection. He is unlikeable to the last.This film also takes some interesting twists that I didn't see coming which takes it beyond the level of a kid's film or even your basic romantic comedy.My only problem with the film, is actually the central problem in the film; Penelope's curse: she has a pig face. But she's not horrible, she adorable. This is, actually the conclusion a lot of people in the film come to, but I don't see where they ever thought otherwise.But the film's themes, like loving yourself as you are, are themes Hollywood needs to spread more of, because when you love yourself, others will love you too. I also like the idea of love inspiring people to be better. Penelope's love for Max inspires her to go out into the world. And Penelope's bold journey inspires Max to rid himself of his vices and embrace his talents. It's a beautifully fantastic tale of true love conquering everything, even having a piggy nose.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-32

ur3751335

title: Beautifully Fantastical review: In the first ten minutes of this film, I kept thinking, "Hmm...this looks like a Tim Burton film." And the look is very fantastic in the Burtonesque style, but it lacks the darkness usually associated with the look of Burton's films. Penelope is a light-hearted flick that is infinitely appropriate for your kids.This film is a fantasy set outside of recognizable space and time. The city in which Penelope lives is an interesting mixture of London and Manhattan, and people speak in both American and English accents, and no one ever questions it. It appears that the likable characters, the "Good Guys", if you will, all speak American and the "Bad Guys" are all decidedly British.Ricci is a likable heroine. She's bright and spunky despite her sheltered existence. When she goes out into the world, she's a babe in the woods, and Annie (producer Reese Witherspoon) is there to give her the grand tour. Witherspoon is sprightly and likable, but I kept thinking the part was better suited to perennial scene-stealer Judy Greer.And I cannot say enough about James McAvoy, who plays Penelope's love-interest, Max. I've known who the Scottish actor was since long before The Chronicles of Narnia and The Last King of Scotland. He brings out his American accent for the first time since Band of Brothers, and is absolutely flawless. While he basically looks like a cuter version of Ringo Starr from Sergeant Pepper, he really does rock the hat and scarf look as well as Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge. His character's own struggle is as moving as Penelope's and more relatable.The supporting cast is also stunning. Catherine O'Hara plays a mom that strongly puts me in mind of Mrs. Bennet from Pride and Prejudice. She's selfish, but you still feel for her, because you see she's just trying to do what she thinks is best for her daughter. Peter Dinklage plays a tabloid reporter who's been looking for Penelope since she was born, and he goes on his own emotional journey through the film, and, in the end, plays in integral part in the central romance. Simon Woods does a one-eighty from his lovable role in Pride and Prejudice, and plays a snobby, blue-blooded git to perfection. He is unlikeable to the last.This film also takes some interesting twists that I didn't see coming which takes it beyond the level of a kid's film or even your basic romantic comedy.My only problem with the film, is actually the central problem in the film; Penelope's curse: she has a pig face. But she's not horrible, she adorable. This is, actually the conclusion a lot of people in the film come to, but I don't see where they ever thought otherwise.But the film's themes, like loving yourself as you are, are themes Hollywood needs to spread more of, because when you love yourself, others will love you too. I also like the idea of love inspiring people to be better. Penelope's love for Max inspires her to go out into the world. And Penelope's bold journey inspires Max to rid himself of his vices and embrace his talents. It's a beautifully fantastic tale of true love conquering everything, even having a piggy nose.

McCheesy's take on "Penelope"

tt0472160

Love stories are always neutral in my book. I'm not really a fan of them but once in a while, I watch a romantic film or two.Penelope is a magical fairy tale complete with curses and wicked witches but set against the backdrop of modern day New York (or whatever city that is). It sounds a lot like "Enchanted" no? But there's no musical or remote-controlled animals here, they're getting beefed up with the modern day fairy tale thing here and I honestly believe it worked pretty well.Christina Ricci, a great young actress was adorable. Young lad James McAvoy pulled off the role Prince Charming really well. I can't wait for Wanted.And I can't believe Peter Dinklage is here! He's back! I last saw him in the Vin Diesel starrer "Find Me Guilty" which was like three years ago, man I was surprised to see him here. He is so underrated just because he's small doesn't mean he can't act.Anyhow, I'd say 7/10 PS. Christina Ricci is still hot with the snout. I've seen worse.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-43

ur10252234

title: McCheesy's take on "Penelope" review: Love stories are always neutral in my book. I'm not really a fan of them but once in a while, I watch a romantic film or two.Penelope is a magical fairy tale complete with curses and wicked witches but set against the backdrop of modern day New York (or whatever city that is). It sounds a lot like "Enchanted" no? But there's no musical or remote-controlled animals here, they're getting beefed up with the modern day fairy tale thing here and I honestly believe it worked pretty well.Christina Ricci, a great young actress was adorable. Young lad James McAvoy pulled off the role Prince Charming really well. I can't wait for Wanted.And I can't believe Peter Dinklage is here! He's back! I last saw him in the Vin Diesel starrer "Find Me Guilty" which was like three years ago, man I was surprised to see him here. He is so underrated just because he's small doesn't mean he can't act.Anyhow, I'd say 7/10 PS. Christina Ricci is still hot with the snout. I've seen worse.

Heartwarming, Funny, and Sweet

tt0472160

In a year (2008) that has thus far been awful at the cinemas, Penelope comes along like a beacon of hope. This lovely fairytale of a girl cursed with a pig snout for a nose is more than just your everyday whimsy tale. It's actually a good film.Christina Ricci comes back to leading roles with flair, playing titular character Penelope with both sweetness and spunk. The rest of the cast is all top-notch as well. Catharine O'Hara is delightful as the unintentionally self-centered mother, and James McAvoy is absolutely adorable as Penelope's love. And at last a respectable role for Peter Dinklage! Then there's Reese Witherspoon, fabulous as always...The entire family will delight in Penelope (the girl and the film), with it's inviting visual style and witty script full of great characters. It is at the same time both a lovely fairytale romance and a modern comedy that is not above laughing at itself. This film deserves success, so tell all of your friends! A wonderful film to brighten your poor-movie-season blues. 8/10 stars! Jay Addison

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-34

ur9314013

title: Heartwarming, Funny, and Sweet review: In a year (2008) that has thus far been awful at the cinemas, Penelope comes along like a beacon of hope. This lovely fairytale of a girl cursed with a pig snout for a nose is more than just your everyday whimsy tale. It's actually a good film.Christina Ricci comes back to leading roles with flair, playing titular character Penelope with both sweetness and spunk. The rest of the cast is all top-notch as well. Catharine O'Hara is delightful as the unintentionally self-centered mother, and James McAvoy is absolutely adorable as Penelope's love. And at last a respectable role for Peter Dinklage! Then there's Reese Witherspoon, fabulous as always...The entire family will delight in Penelope (the girl and the film), with it's inviting visual style and witty script full of great characters. It is at the same time both a lovely fairytale romance and a modern comedy that is not above laughing at itself. This film deserves success, so tell all of your friends! A wonderful film to brighten your poor-movie-season blues. 8/10 stars! Jay Addison

Penelope is mesmerizing

tt0472160

At first, I thought it would be more of a girly movie, mostly filled with sugar-sweet romance and mild humor, fit for girls and kids below the age of 10. But when I saw this film, I realized that I was completely wrong. This movie has been critically not-so-successful but the people loved it, and that's what matters. But I really don't understand what was there to hate in this movie. Except fom some minor flaws, this had nothing so much to criticize about.The pig faced girl shines in this movie. Christina Ricci portrays the role of Penelope, and does it wonderfully. You can cope up with her feelings as soon as the story unfolds. There is humor in this film, gags and scenes that make you smile or laugh, but its genuine.I loved the character who played her mother. The father somehow, doesn't have much to do and isn't shown even that much concerned about the daughter. I wish Reese wan't introduced so late and had so little to do. She did it wonderfully, though. Even then, I wanted more from her. The main actor was good too. The short guy too succeeds in portraying the reporter with revenge on his mind.The main problem with the film that it has too much in it. There are so many stories, though minor, but they are somehow left undone. For example, the two lead characters had much to do in the beginning but it is left for a while as they keep concentrating on other things that are happening. It is said that too many cooks spoil the broth. In the same way, too many stories spoil the script. It hasn't done much damage over here, though. I also felt that main character should have been much more uglier. I mean to say, there are many people who look uglier than her.Overall,its a marvelous treat for everyone. 8 out of 10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-49

ur14156875

title: Penelope is mesmerizing review: At first, I thought it would be more of a girly movie, mostly filled with sugar-sweet romance and mild humor, fit for girls and kids below the age of 10. But when I saw this film, I realized that I was completely wrong. This movie has been critically not-so-successful but the people loved it, and that's what matters. But I really don't understand what was there to hate in this movie. Except fom some minor flaws, this had nothing so much to criticize about.The pig faced girl shines in this movie. Christina Ricci portrays the role of Penelope, and does it wonderfully. You can cope up with her feelings as soon as the story unfolds. There is humor in this film, gags and scenes that make you smile or laugh, but its genuine.I loved the character who played her mother. The father somehow, doesn't have much to do and isn't shown even that much concerned about the daughter. I wish Reese wan't introduced so late and had so little to do. She did it wonderfully, though. Even then, I wanted more from her. The main actor was good too. The short guy too succeeds in portraying the reporter with revenge on his mind.The main problem with the film that it has too much in it. There are so many stories, though minor, but they are somehow left undone. For example, the two lead characters had much to do in the beginning but it is left for a while as they keep concentrating on other things that are happening. It is said that too many cooks spoil the broth. In the same way, too many stories spoil the script. It hasn't done much damage over here, though. I also felt that main character should have been much more uglier. I mean to say, there are many people who look uglier than her.Overall,its a marvelous treat for everyone. 8 out of 10.

Self-Esteem Lessons Inform a Modern-Day Fractured Fairy Tale with a Game Cast

tt0472160

Considering she played a white-trash nymphomaniac chained to a radiator in the last film I saw with her, "Black Snake Moan", I was actually relieved to see Christina Ricci play a sheltered girl of standing born with a pig's snout in this whimsical 2008 parable about self-acceptance. Directed by first-timer Mark Palansky and written by sitcom veteran Leslie Caveney ("Everybody Loves Raymond"), the film was shelved for over a year until it was released in February to mostly apathetic reviews. That's a shame since there is a certain charm generated by the fractured fairy tale being told. Palansky shows a surprisingly light touch for someone who has apprenticed under the aegis of Michael Bay on bombastic schlock like "Pearl Harbor" and "Armageddon", but Caveney's screenplay frequently comes across as plodding and repetitive when the story should feel beguiling. Still, it somehow saves itself by the end thanks primarily to a game cast.The plot follows the sad tale of Penelope Wilhern, an heiress subject to a multi-generational curse when her 19th-century ancestors refused to allow one of their own to marry a servant girl. As the first girl born in the family since that injustice, Penelope is burdened with a pig's snout and can return to normalcy when a fellow aristocrat vows to love her for life. Her obsessive, superficial mother Jessica hides Penelope away in the mansion, even faking her death when a tabloid photographer threatens to take a picture. As Penelope comes of age, Jessica uses a professional matchmaker to line up potential suitors, but they all jump out the window when they see Penelope's supposedly hideous face.One particular aristocrat goes public with what his sighting of Penelope, but of course, there is another candidate, a disheveled, gambling jazz pianist named Max, who does fall in love with her. I was wondering why producer Reese Witherspoon didn't cast herself in the title role given her box office clout, but Ricci is the more suitable choice with her otherworldly stares and naturally pouty manner. The problem is that Ricci (beyond not being a proved bankable draw) looks like she has intentionally applied prosthetic makeup to herself. Rather than looking grotesque, she just looks cartoonishly cute. Witherspoon does cast herself but in a small role as Annie, a Vespa-riding messenger who is Gregory Peck to Ricci's Audrey Hepburn on Penelope's "Roman Holiday"-style adventure. Witherspoon hasn't been this relaxed and likable since she became a star.As Max, the omnipresent James McAvoy (who seems to be suffering from the same level of overexposure Jude Law did a few years back) is more in his element here than as the smitten, heroic soldier in "Atonement". In what feels like a nod to her role as the panicked mother in "Home Alone", the redoubtable Catherine O'Hara generates most of the laughs as Jessica, but her constant shrieking gets repetitive. Peter Dinklage has a few nicely sinister moments as the tabloid photographer. The eclectic soundtrack is highlighted by the Sigur Ros' "Hoppipolla". The only significant extra on the 2008 DVD is a disposable six-minute making-of featurette.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-60

ur3608743

title: Self-Esteem Lessons Inform a Modern-Day Fractured Fairy Tale with a Game Cast review: Considering she played a white-trash nymphomaniac chained to a radiator in the last film I saw with her, "Black Snake Moan", I was actually relieved to see Christina Ricci play a sheltered girl of standing born with a pig's snout in this whimsical 2008 parable about self-acceptance. Directed by first-timer Mark Palansky and written by sitcom veteran Leslie Caveney ("Everybody Loves Raymond"), the film was shelved for over a year until it was released in February to mostly apathetic reviews. That's a shame since there is a certain charm generated by the fractured fairy tale being told. Palansky shows a surprisingly light touch for someone who has apprenticed under the aegis of Michael Bay on bombastic schlock like "Pearl Harbor" and "Armageddon", but Caveney's screenplay frequently comes across as plodding and repetitive when the story should feel beguiling. Still, it somehow saves itself by the end thanks primarily to a game cast.The plot follows the sad tale of Penelope Wilhern, an heiress subject to a multi-generational curse when her 19th-century ancestors refused to allow one of their own to marry a servant girl. As the first girl born in the family since that injustice, Penelope is burdened with a pig's snout and can return to normalcy when a fellow aristocrat vows to love her for life. Her obsessive, superficial mother Jessica hides Penelope away in the mansion, even faking her death when a tabloid photographer threatens to take a picture. As Penelope comes of age, Jessica uses a professional matchmaker to line up potential suitors, but they all jump out the window when they see Penelope's supposedly hideous face.One particular aristocrat goes public with what his sighting of Penelope, but of course, there is another candidate, a disheveled, gambling jazz pianist named Max, who does fall in love with her. I was wondering why producer Reese Witherspoon didn't cast herself in the title role given her box office clout, but Ricci is the more suitable choice with her otherworldly stares and naturally pouty manner. The problem is that Ricci (beyond not being a proved bankable draw) looks like she has intentionally applied prosthetic makeup to herself. Rather than looking grotesque, she just looks cartoonishly cute. Witherspoon does cast herself but in a small role as Annie, a Vespa-riding messenger who is Gregory Peck to Ricci's Audrey Hepburn on Penelope's "Roman Holiday"-style adventure. Witherspoon hasn't been this relaxed and likable since she became a star.As Max, the omnipresent James McAvoy (who seems to be suffering from the same level of overexposure Jude Law did a few years back) is more in his element here than as the smitten, heroic soldier in "Atonement". In what feels like a nod to her role as the panicked mother in "Home Alone", the redoubtable Catherine O'Hara generates most of the laughs as Jessica, but her constant shrieking gets repetitive. Peter Dinklage has a few nicely sinister moments as the tabloid photographer. The eclectic soundtrack is highlighted by the Sigur Ros' "Hoppipolla". The only significant extra on the 2008 DVD is a disposable six-minute making-of featurette.

Clever and Witty Like a Modern Fairy Tale Should Be

tt0472160

I wasn't expecting much when I heard the fairy tale plot, but based on Christina Ricci being in the lead, I decided to try it. I was totally surprised by how well the movie worked. It was quite original, visually creative, and well acted and directed.Christina Ricci is a little more laid back than usual and delivers a charming performance. Catherine O'Hara provides a lot of the funniest punchlines and slapstick. There's a delightful appearance by Reese Witherspoon as a messenger girl.I would definitely recommend it for kids 8-16, but most people from 17-100 will also like it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-79

ur4465624

title: Clever and Witty Like a Modern Fairy Tale Should Be review: I wasn't expecting much when I heard the fairy tale plot, but based on Christina Ricci being in the lead, I decided to try it. I was totally surprised by how well the movie worked. It was quite original, visually creative, and well acted and directed.Christina Ricci is a little more laid back than usual and delivers a charming performance. Catherine O'Hara provides a lot of the funniest punchlines and slapstick. There's a delightful appearance by Reese Witherspoon as a messenger girl.I would definitely recommend it for kids 8-16, but most people from 17-100 will also like it.

Not a pigs ear!

tt0472160

It was only very recently I actually found out about Penelope, it was also actually yesterday I did a bit of research and realised how long ago Penelope was made, in fact it was made in 2006! When I discovered this I began to worry a bit about seeing it, despite a reasonably decent trailer the fact it had been delayed so long meant something was probably wrong with it. Well I saw it tonight, and while it isn't perfect the film is still a charming and thoroughly entertaining film. In many ways it reminded me slightly of one of my favourite films of all time, Edward Scissorhands. Unfortunately its nowhere near as good, but it does have its moments. I actually kind of wish that Tim Burton had got his hands on this movie as this really is the type of film he could make perfect. The film is a nice, family friendly flick, that while a bit cutesy at times has a genuine heart and some decent performances. Unfortunately the movie does have its problems, the ending comes on a bit sudden and the movie does start to struggle slightly in the middle section. But the film is guaranteed to give you a big smile and I definitely feel you can do a lot worse than see this film this half term.Okay lets start with the performances, which in my eyes was one of the best aspects of Penelope. Most prominent is Christina Ricci as Penelope, the girl with the face of a pig. Okay that last statement is very much an over statement, despite her prosthetic pig snout she does not look remotely ugly at all. On the contrary I found her better looking than 80% of the average girls you meet, so you never truly believe people will jump out of windows just to get away from her. However Ricci's performance is truly brilliant, she's so sweet and innocent, and the scenes where she speaks to McAvoy via a mirror is just pitch perfect. It truly displays Ricci's talents and makes you realise how she has come a long way since The Addams Family. James McAvoy pops up at the main man in the movie, also displaying an American accent that actually never really suits him. Nevertheless, despite his ever so slightly distracting accent he delivers a great performance, as he always seems to do. He has great chemistry with Ricci and any scene they share together just sees the screen light up. Catherine O'Hara steals the movie as the over the top mother who I suppose does genuinely mean well. She's funny but also brilliant, and O'Hara seems to be having a blast. Simon Wood is the only weak link in the movie, he plays the villain, the one who finds out about Penelope and tries to get a picture taken of her. Unfortunately he just seems irritating and camp, he's not a funny characters and he at times seems more an annoyance than a plot point. Oh and Reese Witherspoon is wasted, she's in the film I think for a grand total of ten minutes.Penelope also has problems with the middle section, the opening is absolutely brilliant and the ending works in some odd way, but the middle, and second third, is just bland and feels like it is treading water. The introduction of Witherspoon's character just seems like a novelty more than anything else and the lead up to the final third just feels like a waste of an opportunity. Also just before the final ten minutes the movie seems to speed over an important event in mere seconds! Thankfully these faults with the film never make the film a bad film, the film is always watchable and you do genuinely seem to enjoy the film. Also the film never feels over-long, it feels a perfect length, which is nice as I believe if the film got boring in the end then the film would eventually collapse. While I did enjoy the film its also something I doubt I'll ever watch again as it just doesn't have that re-watchability factor. Nevertheless this is a good film for kids and in a time when kids will watch rubbish like Underdog, it would be a lot better for the kids to be taken to see a well made if slightly underachieving film that has a great moral.Penelope is hardly the disaster I assumed it would be due to its release being pushed back, but neither it a masterpiece. Its a sweet, entertaining little movie that is worth watching.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-9

ur13849221

title: Not a pigs ear! review: It was only very recently I actually found out about Penelope, it was also actually yesterday I did a bit of research and realised how long ago Penelope was made, in fact it was made in 2006! When I discovered this I began to worry a bit about seeing it, despite a reasonably decent trailer the fact it had been delayed so long meant something was probably wrong with it. Well I saw it tonight, and while it isn't perfect the film is still a charming and thoroughly entertaining film. In many ways it reminded me slightly of one of my favourite films of all time, Edward Scissorhands. Unfortunately its nowhere near as good, but it does have its moments. I actually kind of wish that Tim Burton had got his hands on this movie as this really is the type of film he could make perfect. The film is a nice, family friendly flick, that while a bit cutesy at times has a genuine heart and some decent performances. Unfortunately the movie does have its problems, the ending comes on a bit sudden and the movie does start to struggle slightly in the middle section. But the film is guaranteed to give you a big smile and I definitely feel you can do a lot worse than see this film this half term.Okay lets start with the performances, which in my eyes was one of the best aspects of Penelope. Most prominent is Christina Ricci as Penelope, the girl with the face of a pig. Okay that last statement is very much an over statement, despite her prosthetic pig snout she does not look remotely ugly at all. On the contrary I found her better looking than 80% of the average girls you meet, so you never truly believe people will jump out of windows just to get away from her. However Ricci's performance is truly brilliant, she's so sweet and innocent, and the scenes where she speaks to McAvoy via a mirror is just pitch perfect. It truly displays Ricci's talents and makes you realise how she has come a long way since The Addams Family. James McAvoy pops up at the main man in the movie, also displaying an American accent that actually never really suits him. Nevertheless, despite his ever so slightly distracting accent he delivers a great performance, as he always seems to do. He has great chemistry with Ricci and any scene they share together just sees the screen light up. Catherine O'Hara steals the movie as the over the top mother who I suppose does genuinely mean well. She's funny but also brilliant, and O'Hara seems to be having a blast. Simon Wood is the only weak link in the movie, he plays the villain, the one who finds out about Penelope and tries to get a picture taken of her. Unfortunately he just seems irritating and camp, he's not a funny characters and he at times seems more an annoyance than a plot point. Oh and Reese Witherspoon is wasted, she's in the film I think for a grand total of ten minutes.Penelope also has problems with the middle section, the opening is absolutely brilliant and the ending works in some odd way, but the middle, and second third, is just bland and feels like it is treading water. The introduction of Witherspoon's character just seems like a novelty more than anything else and the lead up to the final third just feels like a waste of an opportunity. Also just before the final ten minutes the movie seems to speed over an important event in mere seconds! Thankfully these faults with the film never make the film a bad film, the film is always watchable and you do genuinely seem to enjoy the film. Also the film never feels over-long, it feels a perfect length, which is nice as I believe if the film got boring in the end then the film would eventually collapse. While I did enjoy the film its also something I doubt I'll ever watch again as it just doesn't have that re-watchability factor. Nevertheless this is a good film for kids and in a time when kids will watch rubbish like Underdog, it would be a lot better for the kids to be taken to see a well made if slightly underachieving film that has a great moral.Penelope is hardly the disaster I assumed it would be due to its release being pushed back, but neither it a masterpiece. Its a sweet, entertaining little movie that is worth watching.

For Fairy Tale & fantasy lovers of all ages

tt0472160

Leslie Cavenry wrote this delightful fantasy fairy tale.Mark Palansky in his first directorial effort guides a large cast of well known players with almost effortless ease.Even though this is pure fantasy there are are smart elements of reality. Thankfully The makers of the movie never allowed it to get overly silly & stupid, There are a few stupid moments BUT they do not go overboard.The cast is uniformly great. Christina Ricci as usual is an absolute delight. Catherine O'Hara & Richard E Grant portray her parents,& being the accomplished actors they are, they convey the proper charm & anguish called for. Peter Dinklage (he may be short in stature) gives another great performance, Reese Witherspoon doubles as the producer of the movie & has an an extended cameo role-- She is such a reliable actress. Last but not least as the Male lead is James McAvoy, this talented actor seems to be in every other movie.The film is rated PG & yes it is a family oriented film. The kids will definitely enjoy it. I am NO kid & I loved it. Grouches & purists stay away,this film is for fairy tale fantasy lovers.Ratings ***1/2 (out of 4) 94 points (out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472160/reviews-67

ur0495697

title: For Fairy Tale & fantasy lovers of all ages review: Leslie Cavenry wrote this delightful fantasy fairy tale.Mark Palansky in his first directorial effort guides a large cast of well known players with almost effortless ease.Even though this is pure fantasy there are are smart elements of reality. Thankfully The makers of the movie never allowed it to get overly silly & stupid, There are a few stupid moments BUT they do not go overboard.The cast is uniformly great. Christina Ricci as usual is an absolute delight. Catherine O'Hara & Richard E Grant portray her parents,& being the accomplished actors they are, they convey the proper charm & anguish called for. Peter Dinklage (he may be short in stature) gives another great performance, Reese Witherspoon doubles as the producer of the movie & has an an extended cameo role-- She is such a reliable actress. Last but not least as the Male lead is James McAvoy, this talented actor seems to be in every other movie.The film is rated PG & yes it is a family oriented film. The kids will definitely enjoy it. I am NO kid & I loved it. Grouches & purists stay away,this film is for fairy tale fantasy lovers.Ratings ***1/2 (out of 4) 94 points (out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10)

An entertaining pre Halloween movie

tt0805570

I've been dying to watch some new(to me anyway) horror flicks since Halloween's just around the corner, when I stumbled onto this movie. I enjoyed it. There was a satisfactory amount of tension and creepiness with a nice dollop of gore. It was a little slow in places, but the movie made up for it with some really good scenes. I found the photographer character interesting. The killer was very creepy with his dead eyed stare. This movie reminds me of the classic slasher movies. The gore isn't overwhelming, although I did say.."Oh gross!!" a few times. Even though I was suspecting the twist at the end, it was still satisfying for me. If you enjoy horror movies, you may want to give this a try.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-53

ur6929395

title: An entertaining pre Halloween movie review: I've been dying to watch some new(to me anyway) horror flicks since Halloween's just around the corner, when I stumbled onto this movie. I enjoyed it. There was a satisfactory amount of tension and creepiness with a nice dollop of gore. It was a little slow in places, but the movie made up for it with some really good scenes. I found the photographer character interesting. The killer was very creepy with his dead eyed stare. This movie reminds me of the classic slasher movies. The gore isn't overwhelming, although I did say.."Oh gross!!" a few times. Even though I was suspecting the twist at the end, it was still satisfying for me. If you enjoy horror movies, you may want to give this a try.

Only those with a strong stomach will successfully make it to the end of the line.

tt0805570

Hop on board and hold on tight, 'cos The Midnight Meat Train is a wild ride through the twisted world of Clive Barker, and with splatterific Japanese horror/action director Ryûhei Kitamura at the controls it can only get messy.Based on a short story in Barker's Books of Blood, The Midnight Meat Train stars Bradley Cooper as NY photographer Leon, who stumbles upon the existence of a brutal killer called Mahogany (Vinnie jones) who roams the subway butchering those passengers unfortunate enough to ride the first train after 2.00am. Leon tracks and photographs the murderous brute as he goes about his grisly work; in doing so he not only starts to lose his sanity, but exposes those he loves to mortal danger.I'll be the first to admit that The Midnight Meat Train isn't without its flaws: as far as the script goes it's a case of 'mind the gaps' with lapses in logic and loose plot threads galore, and Cooper is far from memorable in the lead. However, there are several factors that prevent this train from derailing and winding up a total wreck....First, we have Kitamura's creative direction which uses audacious camera trickery and awesome CGI effects to stunning effect. A POV shot from a severed head is delightfully nasty, but the most breathtaking moment comes as Cooper fights Jones aboard a speeding train, the camera constantly revolving around the action, even leaving the confines of the carriage.Next, we have the spectacular gore, which is absolutely eye-popping (quite literally, in one particularly memorable scene featuring Ted Raimi): Mahogany brutally bludgeons his victims with a massive metal hammer, which results in some really nasty injuries (including one total decapitation), after which he prepares the body (shaves the hair, plucks out the eyeballs, removes teeth) and hoists it up using hooks through the ankles. All of this is presented with amazing visual flair and a keen eye for disgusting detail.Finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, we have Vinnie Jones putting in an impressive turn as Mahognay. If anyone was born to play this role, it's Jones: he might not be the most accomplished actor ever to grace the silver screen, but he effortly exudes the menace and mental instability required to make the character a truly convincing figure of fear.As the film approaches its conclusion, The Midnight Meat Train switches track to travel down a more supernatural branch; this change in direction might prove too much for those who thought they were watching a straightforward serial killer flick, but I relished every weird and wonderful development (I haven't read the short story, but it was kinda what I expected from Barker).7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-181

ur0945066

title: Only those with a strong stomach will successfully make it to the end of the line. review: Hop on board and hold on tight, 'cos The Midnight Meat Train is a wild ride through the twisted world of Clive Barker, and with splatterific Japanese horror/action director Ryûhei Kitamura at the controls it can only get messy.Based on a short story in Barker's Books of Blood, The Midnight Meat Train stars Bradley Cooper as NY photographer Leon, who stumbles upon the existence of a brutal killer called Mahogany (Vinnie jones) who roams the subway butchering those passengers unfortunate enough to ride the first train after 2.00am. Leon tracks and photographs the murderous brute as he goes about his grisly work; in doing so he not only starts to lose his sanity, but exposes those he loves to mortal danger.I'll be the first to admit that The Midnight Meat Train isn't without its flaws: as far as the script goes it's a case of 'mind the gaps' with lapses in logic and loose plot threads galore, and Cooper is far from memorable in the lead. However, there are several factors that prevent this train from derailing and winding up a total wreck....First, we have Kitamura's creative direction which uses audacious camera trickery and awesome CGI effects to stunning effect. A POV shot from a severed head is delightfully nasty, but the most breathtaking moment comes as Cooper fights Jones aboard a speeding train, the camera constantly revolving around the action, even leaving the confines of the carriage.Next, we have the spectacular gore, which is absolutely eye-popping (quite literally, in one particularly memorable scene featuring Ted Raimi): Mahogany brutally bludgeons his victims with a massive metal hammer, which results in some really nasty injuries (including one total decapitation), after which he prepares the body (shaves the hair, plucks out the eyeballs, removes teeth) and hoists it up using hooks through the ankles. All of this is presented with amazing visual flair and a keen eye for disgusting detail.Finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, we have Vinnie Jones putting in an impressive turn as Mahognay. If anyone was born to play this role, it's Jones: he might not be the most accomplished actor ever to grace the silver screen, but he effortly exudes the menace and mental instability required to make the character a truly convincing figure of fear.As the film approaches its conclusion, The Midnight Meat Train switches track to travel down a more supernatural branch; this change in direction might prove too much for those who thought they were watching a straightforward serial killer flick, but I relished every weird and wonderful development (I haven't read the short story, but it was kinda what I expected from Barker).7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.

Cheese-horror for the next generation! Wait, what? This movie is supposed to be serious?

tt0805570

The Midnight Meat Train is exactly the reason horror isn't a very big genre money-wise. Being a hardcore horror fan, but one who actually enjoys HORROR and not just cheese, I'm constantly told by people that they don't watch horror movies for the same reasons Scream listed: They all follow the same, predictable plot. They're all pumped to the max with cheesy, unrealistic, laughable situations. They're never scary. They're never really gory. They're ridicules. That's the non-horror-watching public's view of the genre. And you know what's sadder than their misconception? Movies like The Midnight Meat Train are just out to prove them right.The reason I bring this up is because the controversy over The Midnight Meat Train stated that it was a "good horror movie" and had "no reason to be treated this way". Umm, sorry, but yes, there was a reason this film was released in cheap, limited theaters. A big one. If it were a major theatrical release it would have been laughed out in a week.What The Midnight Meat Train got right: - It rips-off Saw and Hostel's art styles, then adds a new, fresh layer of directing that was very stylish. Why couldn't this have been used in better movies? - The first hour was pretty engaging (if also not predicable).- It was in no way a very gory movie, but it earned its R-rating. I've seen so many horror movies that are rated R with no reason to be.What The Midnight Meat Train got wrong: - Beyond everything else, the plot has to be one of the most cliché, unoriginal things to hit a theatrical horror movie in a long time. Someone kills The Texas Chainsaw Massacre-style, who would have guessed they're also a butcher? Or a random, unsuspecting man witnesses a murder, who would have guessed he becomes obsessed and tries to figure it out himself? From opening to close, The Midnight Meat Train was one cliché after another cliché. The ending, no matter how cheesy, has been used countless times in Stephen King and Dean Koontz short stories long before Clive Baker could have even been old enough to get the idea. I've seen a lot of unoriginal movies in the past, but this is just ridicules.- The meat is pumped to overflowing with cheese. The acting from anyone and everyone on the train was like watching a first-time Sci-fi Channel actor. The ending plot twist had me laughing out loud. To top that off, it was delivered by Mr. Sci-fi Channel in a monotone voice that I swear I've heard say "The Ultra 5000 landed on Yenum in Quasi-Tum!" before.- I'll never get the overuse of pointless sex scenes in movies. It just makes them laughable, but directors don't seem to get that. But because The Midnight Meat Train did everything else pumped with cheese, we get to see the main leads bang dogie style in a subway station. What was the point of that, other than to show the director/writer has the maturity level of a 13-year-old boy? Is this what our generation considered "characterization"? - The CGI gore was horrible. I think the trailer and promo pictures were more brutal than the actual movie. Most of the gore is a cut-off scene where the camera is focusing at the wall while Mr. Cliché is mutated. I really miss the time when horror was actually pushed boundaries and was actually disturbing . . .The overall consensus: The Midnight Meat Train was a joke and the ending plot twist was the punch line.So much for horror that is really scary or disturbing, because this is what the horror fans beg for, and this is what we get.0/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-56

ur19835265

title: Cheese-horror for the next generation! Wait, what? This movie is supposed to be serious? review: The Midnight Meat Train is exactly the reason horror isn't a very big genre money-wise. Being a hardcore horror fan, but one who actually enjoys HORROR and not just cheese, I'm constantly told by people that they don't watch horror movies for the same reasons Scream listed: They all follow the same, predictable plot. They're all pumped to the max with cheesy, unrealistic, laughable situations. They're never scary. They're never really gory. They're ridicules. That's the non-horror-watching public's view of the genre. And you know what's sadder than their misconception? Movies like The Midnight Meat Train are just out to prove them right.The reason I bring this up is because the controversy over The Midnight Meat Train stated that it was a "good horror movie" and had "no reason to be treated this way". Umm, sorry, but yes, there was a reason this film was released in cheap, limited theaters. A big one. If it were a major theatrical release it would have been laughed out in a week.What The Midnight Meat Train got right: - It rips-off Saw and Hostel's art styles, then adds a new, fresh layer of directing that was very stylish. Why couldn't this have been used in better movies? - The first hour was pretty engaging (if also not predicable).- It was in no way a very gory movie, but it earned its R-rating. I've seen so many horror movies that are rated R with no reason to be.What The Midnight Meat Train got wrong: - Beyond everything else, the plot has to be one of the most cliché, unoriginal things to hit a theatrical horror movie in a long time. Someone kills The Texas Chainsaw Massacre-style, who would have guessed they're also a butcher? Or a random, unsuspecting man witnesses a murder, who would have guessed he becomes obsessed and tries to figure it out himself? From opening to close, The Midnight Meat Train was one cliché after another cliché. The ending, no matter how cheesy, has been used countless times in Stephen King and Dean Koontz short stories long before Clive Baker could have even been old enough to get the idea. I've seen a lot of unoriginal movies in the past, but this is just ridicules.- The meat is pumped to overflowing with cheese. The acting from anyone and everyone on the train was like watching a first-time Sci-fi Channel actor. The ending plot twist had me laughing out loud. To top that off, it was delivered by Mr. Sci-fi Channel in a monotone voice that I swear I've heard say "The Ultra 5000 landed on Yenum in Quasi-Tum!" before.- I'll never get the overuse of pointless sex scenes in movies. It just makes them laughable, but directors don't seem to get that. But because The Midnight Meat Train did everything else pumped with cheese, we get to see the main leads bang dogie style in a subway station. What was the point of that, other than to show the director/writer has the maturity level of a 13-year-old boy? Is this what our generation considered "characterization"? - The CGI gore was horrible. I think the trailer and promo pictures were more brutal than the actual movie. Most of the gore is a cut-off scene where the camera is focusing at the wall while Mr. Cliché is mutated. I really miss the time when horror was actually pushed boundaries and was actually disturbing . . .The overall consensus: The Midnight Meat Train was a joke and the ending plot twist was the punch line.So much for horror that is really scary or disturbing, because this is what the horror fans beg for, and this is what we get.0/10

Interesting and entertaining, but nothing special

tt0805570

Approximately 20 years ago, writer Clive Barker melted my brain with The Books of Blood, collection on various volumes of his short stories, which came out of nowhere and were immediately acclaimed as a watershed on literary fantastic genre.In The Books of Blood, Barker showed that the brutal violence could perfectly be endorsed by brilliant stories and that the most grotesque descriptions of human and supernatural horrors are much more terrifying when they are expressed on an almost poetic language.I think that everyone is gonna have his/her favorite Barker's story from The Books of Blood; in my case, that one is In the Hills, The Cities, but The Midnight Meat Train is on a very close second position.Because of that, I had a bit of awe on its film adaptation, but the fact that Barker approved it and that it was directed by Ryuhei Kitamura (who made the very entertaining films Versus and Godzilla: Final Wars) made me have a bit of optimism on it.The result was an interesting and entertaining movie, but which is not very memorable and has some important fails.The best element from this film is definitely Vinnie Jones' performance, which is really brilliant.The intensity on his face and his body language bring perfect life to his character.In summary, Jones definitely increases the quality of the movie.In the leading role, Bradley Cooper feels a bit bland.I do not think he is a bad actor; he was adequate as a "sidekick" on the TV series Alias and he showed an excellent instinct for the comedy in The Hangover.However, he does not seem to be very interested in his character in The Midnight Meat Train.Besides of Cooper, there are some important fails on the screenplay.As it always happens when a short story is adapted to cinema, the screenwriter must "pump up" the story in order to get the average running time on contemporary cinema of 100-120 minutes.Some elements on the screenplay work well, like for example the discussions about the main character's career as a photographer, the relationship he has with his girlfriend Maya and some philosophical dialogs he has with his friend Jurgis.But I think the screenplay lost the main point from the short story.I will not reveal it in order not to say spoilers, but the historical and cultural punch with which Barker concluded the short story is reduced to some generic sequences of horror and violence, which lead us to a moderately satisfactory ending but which does not have enough substance to endorse the twist at the end.If I had to compare The Midnight Meat Train with other film adaptations of Barker's works, I would consider it superior to Nightbreed, at the same level of Lord of Illusions and very below of Hellraiser.It may not be highly memorable, but I can recommend The Midnight Meat Train because it made me have a good time in spite of its fails.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-122

ur6216723

title: Interesting and entertaining, but nothing special review: Approximately 20 years ago, writer Clive Barker melted my brain with The Books of Blood, collection on various volumes of his short stories, which came out of nowhere and were immediately acclaimed as a watershed on literary fantastic genre.In The Books of Blood, Barker showed that the brutal violence could perfectly be endorsed by brilliant stories and that the most grotesque descriptions of human and supernatural horrors are much more terrifying when they are expressed on an almost poetic language.I think that everyone is gonna have his/her favorite Barker's story from The Books of Blood; in my case, that one is In the Hills, The Cities, but The Midnight Meat Train is on a very close second position.Because of that, I had a bit of awe on its film adaptation, but the fact that Barker approved it and that it was directed by Ryuhei Kitamura (who made the very entertaining films Versus and Godzilla: Final Wars) made me have a bit of optimism on it.The result was an interesting and entertaining movie, but which is not very memorable and has some important fails.The best element from this film is definitely Vinnie Jones' performance, which is really brilliant.The intensity on his face and his body language bring perfect life to his character.In summary, Jones definitely increases the quality of the movie.In the leading role, Bradley Cooper feels a bit bland.I do not think he is a bad actor; he was adequate as a "sidekick" on the TV series Alias and he showed an excellent instinct for the comedy in The Hangover.However, he does not seem to be very interested in his character in The Midnight Meat Train.Besides of Cooper, there are some important fails on the screenplay.As it always happens when a short story is adapted to cinema, the screenwriter must "pump up" the story in order to get the average running time on contemporary cinema of 100-120 minutes.Some elements on the screenplay work well, like for example the discussions about the main character's career as a photographer, the relationship he has with his girlfriend Maya and some philosophical dialogs he has with his friend Jurgis.But I think the screenplay lost the main point from the short story.I will not reveal it in order not to say spoilers, but the historical and cultural punch with which Barker concluded the short story is reduced to some generic sequences of horror and violence, which lead us to a moderately satisfactory ending but which does not have enough substance to endorse the twist at the end.If I had to compare The Midnight Meat Train with other film adaptations of Barker's works, I would consider it superior to Nightbreed, at the same level of Lord of Illusions and very below of Hellraiser.It may not be highly memorable, but I can recommend The Midnight Meat Train because it made me have a good time in spite of its fails.

The award for best title which could double as a gay porn goes to...

tt0805570

The award for best title which could double as a gay porn goes to...and knowing Clive Barker, I doubt its a coincidence.Anyway, Vinnie Jones is great in this, he has one word of dialog, "Welcome". The direction is sharper than it needs to be for the subject. The film has a "Masters Of Horror" vibe to it, but on the series' better days.A man photographs a women who mysteriously disappears the next day, and he fears she was murdered by a serial killer, called the "Subway Butcher", but he doesn't seem to be working alone. Police are aware of his presence but do nothing, the reason why relates to New York's greatest WTF secret.The ending could have been better, there's a scene in an art gallery, when Leon is showing his photographs to a curator, saying he wanted to capture the heart of the city. She looks at one of his photos, of a homeless man slumped over next a businessman on the subway, who tries to ignore him by focusing intently on his news paper. The curator says, "This photo; right place, wrong time. Sure the image captures our attention but so what, its just melodrama. I want to see the look on this mans face when the filth touches him. Next time your in the heart of the city, wait longer, you might see it." That sums up the the problem with this movie in general, that and some of the CGI gore(eyes exploding from heads), but mainly, when we arrive at the final denouement, it comes and goes much too quickly, without answering any of the questions its raised in the last ten minutes. It misses the heart of the story.Still its more inventive than your average horror film, Clive Barker, always comes up with horrific ways of looking at mundane things, subway handles become meat hooks, tunnels become the roads to hell, the roar of the rails, the screech of demons. Best to watch with friends, not scary, but some intense moments.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-99

ur15982856

title: The award for best title which could double as a gay porn goes to... review: The award for best title which could double as a gay porn goes to...and knowing Clive Barker, I doubt its a coincidence.Anyway, Vinnie Jones is great in this, he has one word of dialog, "Welcome". The direction is sharper than it needs to be for the subject. The film has a "Masters Of Horror" vibe to it, but on the series' better days.A man photographs a women who mysteriously disappears the next day, and he fears she was murdered by a serial killer, called the "Subway Butcher", but he doesn't seem to be working alone. Police are aware of his presence but do nothing, the reason why relates to New York's greatest WTF secret.The ending could have been better, there's a scene in an art gallery, when Leon is showing his photographs to a curator, saying he wanted to capture the heart of the city. She looks at one of his photos, of a homeless man slumped over next a businessman on the subway, who tries to ignore him by focusing intently on his news paper. The curator says, "This photo; right place, wrong time. Sure the image captures our attention but so what, its just melodrama. I want to see the look on this mans face when the filth touches him. Next time your in the heart of the city, wait longer, you might see it." That sums up the the problem with this movie in general, that and some of the CGI gore(eyes exploding from heads), but mainly, when we arrive at the final denouement, it comes and goes much too quickly, without answering any of the questions its raised in the last ten minutes. It misses the heart of the story.Still its more inventive than your average horror film, Clive Barker, always comes up with horrific ways of looking at mundane things, subway handles become meat hooks, tunnels become the roads to hell, the roar of the rails, the screech of demons. Best to watch with friends, not scary, but some intense moments.

Weird yet fascinating.

tt0805570

THE MIDNIGHT MEAT TRAIN is certainly a weird but fascinating horror film, I admit of course there are leaner and meaner horror films out there but this film's aim is not to try and be overly scary, it actually tries to draw you in with an intriguing plot which it does, it sets a very dark mood and has an interesting atmosphere to it, the camera work has this sometime artistic subtlety about it, like the director was very precise about what he wanted from every shot.the acting is great all around, Vinnie Jones certainly makes the ideal scary bad guy and this is probably the second film where he virtually has no lines, of course he spoke two sentences in GONE IN 60 SECONDS, here he says less.Its not the leanest, meanest horror film out there but its good in its own way.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-103

ur16399785

title: Weird yet fascinating. review: THE MIDNIGHT MEAT TRAIN is certainly a weird but fascinating horror film, I admit of course there are leaner and meaner horror films out there but this film's aim is not to try and be overly scary, it actually tries to draw you in with an intriguing plot which it does, it sets a very dark mood and has an interesting atmosphere to it, the camera work has this sometime artistic subtlety about it, like the director was very precise about what he wanted from every shot.the acting is great all around, Vinnie Jones certainly makes the ideal scary bad guy and this is probably the second film where he virtually has no lines, of course he spoke two sentences in GONE IN 60 SECONDS, here he says less.Its not the leanest, meanest horror film out there but its good in its own way.

Sit in the dark and watch it around the midnight house and eat a steak at the same time.

tt0805570

What I think makes this movie so scary is that there is tons of darkness in it and people being alone. What I was most afraid of was the butcher because he just had those eyes that just stopped me cold and make the hair on my neck rise. I don't know what that Leon guy was thinking but he had some guts to keep on and keep on taking pictures of the butcher guy. I would've just taken a couple of pictures and walked off. I wouldn't have kept following him and that's why the movie gets so good. It's great because Leon keeps on digging into what this guy on the subway is really about. Then there are a bunch of awesome twists and turns at the end and the ending is just perfect. It's one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. It's right up there with "The Stepford Wives" and "1408."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-140

ur10123981

title: Sit in the dark and watch it around the midnight house and eat a steak at the same time. review: What I think makes this movie so scary is that there is tons of darkness in it and people being alone. What I was most afraid of was the butcher because he just had those eyes that just stopped me cold and make the hair on my neck rise. I don't know what that Leon guy was thinking but he had some guts to keep on and keep on taking pictures of the butcher guy. I would've just taken a couple of pictures and walked off. I wouldn't have kept following him and that's why the movie gets so good. It's great because Leon keeps on digging into what this guy on the subway is really about. Then there are a bunch of awesome twists and turns at the end and the ending is just perfect. It's one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. It's right up there with "The Stepford Wives" and "1408."

Intriguing, unusual, strong horror film.

tt0805570

An ambitious art photographer (Bradley Cooper) is trying to capture the darkness, sleaziness or the disturbing sights of New York City by taking photos of strangers. But he has an eye on a mysterious butcher (Vinnie Jones), who takes the subway after midnight. But the photographer realized that one of the strangers, he took a picture of... is missing. Also the butcher was on the subway, when the person was last seen. But there's more than meets the eye of this butcher and the photographer tries to uncover the truth before it is too late.Directed by Ryuhei Kitamura made an stylish brutal horror film with some effective moments. Cooper and especially Jones are good in their roles. It is sad that "Lionsgate" didn't bother to market this movie well. I think this movie could have had something at the box office but for sure... it would do well, once it is released on Blu-ray/DVD. The DVD is the Unrated Director's Cut. The DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an strong Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an interesting commentary track by the director Kitamura and novelist Clive Barker and three featurettes. This film is based on a short story by Barker (Hellraiser, Lord of Illusions, Nightbreed), which Barker is one of the film's producers. "The Midnight Meat Train" is a surprisingly good movie... even during the bizarre (unexpected) third act. Which it might turn-off some viewers. This is certainly one of the most underrated horror movies of 2008. Actor:Fisher Stevens is one of the executive producers. Ted Raimi appears in a cameo. Super 35. (****/*****).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-57

ur5115203

title: Intriguing, unusual, strong horror film. review: An ambitious art photographer (Bradley Cooper) is trying to capture the darkness, sleaziness or the disturbing sights of New York City by taking photos of strangers. But he has an eye on a mysterious butcher (Vinnie Jones), who takes the subway after midnight. But the photographer realized that one of the strangers, he took a picture of... is missing. Also the butcher was on the subway, when the person was last seen. But there's more than meets the eye of this butcher and the photographer tries to uncover the truth before it is too late.Directed by Ryuhei Kitamura made an stylish brutal horror film with some effective moments. Cooper and especially Jones are good in their roles. It is sad that "Lionsgate" didn't bother to market this movie well. I think this movie could have had something at the box office but for sure... it would do well, once it is released on Blu-ray/DVD. The DVD is the Unrated Director's Cut. The DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an strong Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an interesting commentary track by the director Kitamura and novelist Clive Barker and three featurettes. This film is based on a short story by Barker (Hellraiser, Lord of Illusions, Nightbreed), which Barker is one of the film's producers. "The Midnight Meat Train" is a surprisingly good movie... even during the bizarre (unexpected) third act. Which it might turn-off some viewers. This is certainly one of the most underrated horror movies of 2008. Actor:Fisher Stevens is one of the executive producers. Ted Raimi appears in a cameo. Super 35. (****/*****).

Gory Good

tt0805570

'Midnight Meat Train' knows exactly what it wants to be and it doesn't apologize for it. It is an over the top, gory, adult thrill ride and it it's power stems from it. The film isn't a masterpiece by any means but it is admirable in it's scope, well acted, and very much brilliantly conceived.I was really surprised by the performances in this film. The cast is filled with big talent who all take the material with utmost sincerity. Bradley Cooper is very good as the doomed Leon. Leon is a sympathetic character and one who takes steps closer to hell with no good reason. We let Cooper do this however when a lesser actor might have made the motives seem wrong. There is a fascination with the dark and hell is the darkest place of all. Cooper brilliantly showcases this fascination that eventually turns into fear. Vinnie Jones is very good as the mute Butcher character. One might think this would be a throw away performance but it really is not. This Butcher can't be a hulk and Jones really showcases the mystery of the man that so attracts Leon.Is this premise really scary? No, in fact it's boring and predictable. Meat and butchers have really become cheap horror clichés. What really works about the film is that it realizes this and plays up the notions behind the meat man. Our butcher isn't armed with a meat cleaver but an impossibly large meat tenderizer. He whacks victims in the head with it and more blood than the human body can possibly store spews out. There is really something to admire here. The film really relishes in it's absurdity but doesn't delve into self parody. This is a thin line and the fact that 'Midnight Meat Train' so successfully balances this is really admirable. The Butcher is fresh and scary despite really being a horror cut out. He's the kind of villain it's fun to hide from but isn't a clown like a lesser Freddy Krueger might be.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-162

ur4986911

title: Gory Good review: 'Midnight Meat Train' knows exactly what it wants to be and it doesn't apologize for it. It is an over the top, gory, adult thrill ride and it it's power stems from it. The film isn't a masterpiece by any means but it is admirable in it's scope, well acted, and very much brilliantly conceived.I was really surprised by the performances in this film. The cast is filled with big talent who all take the material with utmost sincerity. Bradley Cooper is very good as the doomed Leon. Leon is a sympathetic character and one who takes steps closer to hell with no good reason. We let Cooper do this however when a lesser actor might have made the motives seem wrong. There is a fascination with the dark and hell is the darkest place of all. Cooper brilliantly showcases this fascination that eventually turns into fear. Vinnie Jones is very good as the mute Butcher character. One might think this would be a throw away performance but it really is not. This Butcher can't be a hulk and Jones really showcases the mystery of the man that so attracts Leon.Is this premise really scary? No, in fact it's boring and predictable. Meat and butchers have really become cheap horror clichés. What really works about the film is that it realizes this and plays up the notions behind the meat man. Our butcher isn't armed with a meat cleaver but an impossibly large meat tenderizer. He whacks victims in the head with it and more blood than the human body can possibly store spews out. There is really something to admire here. The film really relishes in it's absurdity but doesn't delve into self parody. This is a thin line and the fact that 'Midnight Meat Train' so successfully balances this is really admirable. The Butcher is fresh and scary despite really being a horror cut out. He's the kind of villain it's fun to hide from but isn't a clown like a lesser Freddy Krueger might be.

People usually run away … The Midnight Meat Train

tt0805570

I don't know what it was about the trailer for The Midnight Meat Train that drew me in, but I had been anticipating finally seeing it for a long while. Maybe it was seeing Bradley Cooper in a lead role, against his usual type, (and now of course he is huge after The Hangover); maybe it was the bleak, metallic starkness of the subway car surroundings; or perhaps it was that it's based on a Clive Barker short story. Now, if I were to pick any of the horror series from the 80s and 90s as my favorite, it would be an easy answer—Hellraiser. That being said, I think Barker's involvement really piqued my interest. Upon viewing, though, I started to forget about his connection because of how very straightforward the suspense/thriller was. Only at the end, when everything that had happened is revealed to be part of something much bigger, does Barker's stamp appear. And boy, does it ever. Ryûhei Kitamura has added some style and mood to this thing and crafted one of the more enjoyable horror films I've seen in quite some time.There are some conveniences for sure, but I tend to look beyond them in a film like this; one that isn't trying to win any awards, just trying to entertain for a couple hours. Photographer Leon Kauffman (Cooper) is trying his hardest to break out and find a niche to make him the money needed to finally propose to his girl Maya, played by Leslie Bibb. After meeting with the authority on photography in the art world—a fascinating bit part from Brooke Shields, picking her out of Hollywood obscurity—he realizes that he must catch glimpses of the city more provocative and dangerous than those he has been. After following some gangbangers down to the subway, taking their photo while terrorizing a young model, Leon's life is changed forever. He steps up to these hoodlums, saves the girl, and eventually catches a glimpse of the uniquely ringed finger holding the door open for the almost/soon to be victim. The finger belongs to Mahogany, a mysterious man playing butcher by day and possibly butcher, with a different sort of meat altogether, by night.The film then sets out to show Cooper's spiral downward into the conspiracies running through his head. The cops don't believe his theories and neither does his fiancé, but it doesn't stop him from putting his life in danger by stalking Mahogany on his daily travels, snapping photos as he goes, photos that get him into a prestigious gallery showing, one that could catapult his career, but also photos that haunt his dreams, driving him to discover what is really happening on the 2:00am train. His nightly journeys lead to some interesting camera-work with plenty of angular shots as well as the utilization of multiple reflective surfaces. Mirrors, windows, and even pools of blood are used to show events occurring behind the camera. Well, scratch that, events occurring to the camera, which is standing in for a character. One effective technique here is that there are many instances where the lens becomes our eyes; we watch as Mahogany comes at us with a knife or meat mallet, allowing the audience to enter the film and its carnage.There are other flourishes that standout as well, namely a spectacularly shot climatic fight sequence at the end where the camera whooshes from inside the subway car to outside, weaving in and out while it circles the mayhem transpiring inside. Yes, there are times when the computer effects work shows to be blatantly manufactured, (Ted Raimi's eye can attest to this), but it can't necessarily take you out of a tale so removed from reality in the first place. Even the fact that Vinnie Jones' malicious killer never utters a word adds to the atmosphere of the film. His sneers and wry smile do so much more to express what his character is thinking than words ever could. Jones is a force to be reckoned with, one who's secrets await us to be discovered along with the truth to why these midnight murders are happening.While, like most horrors, the look and feel, along with the villain's performance, really make or break them, the rest of the acting here lives up to its end of the job also. Bibb is a bit overbearing in a role that never adds very much to the plot anyways, but you can't fault her as much as the weakly written role. Her actions are the most head-shakingly convenient; we watch her do things that her character probably wouldn't do, but which are crucial to the progression of the story. I really enjoy Roger Bart, slowly becoming a genre staple with this and his turn in Hostel II, as the friend, a bit odd being that his face and emotive qualities scream villain; and Tony Curran as the train conductor is nicely foreboding and mysterious. But it is with Cooper, the lead in the story and ultimately the man for whom the film hinges on, that excels. You believe in his character throughout, whether in love with Maya and his work or becoming increasingly paranoid about what he thinks he sees. Cooper is invested in Leon and his actions show this fact; especially in the final shot, bringing chills as an ending bookmark to the film. It's a conclusion that cycles back to the opening scene, adding just one more layer of intrigue to an already successful exercise in brutality, the human psyche, and even a bit of the fantastically surreal.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-109

ur2020154

title: People usually run away … The Midnight Meat Train review: I don't know what it was about the trailer for The Midnight Meat Train that drew me in, but I had been anticipating finally seeing it for a long while. Maybe it was seeing Bradley Cooper in a lead role, against his usual type, (and now of course he is huge after The Hangover); maybe it was the bleak, metallic starkness of the subway car surroundings; or perhaps it was that it's based on a Clive Barker short story. Now, if I were to pick any of the horror series from the 80s and 90s as my favorite, it would be an easy answer—Hellraiser. That being said, I think Barker's involvement really piqued my interest. Upon viewing, though, I started to forget about his connection because of how very straightforward the suspense/thriller was. Only at the end, when everything that had happened is revealed to be part of something much bigger, does Barker's stamp appear. And boy, does it ever. Ryûhei Kitamura has added some style and mood to this thing and crafted one of the more enjoyable horror films I've seen in quite some time.There are some conveniences for sure, but I tend to look beyond them in a film like this; one that isn't trying to win any awards, just trying to entertain for a couple hours. Photographer Leon Kauffman (Cooper) is trying his hardest to break out and find a niche to make him the money needed to finally propose to his girl Maya, played by Leslie Bibb. After meeting with the authority on photography in the art world—a fascinating bit part from Brooke Shields, picking her out of Hollywood obscurity—he realizes that he must catch glimpses of the city more provocative and dangerous than those he has been. After following some gangbangers down to the subway, taking their photo while terrorizing a young model, Leon's life is changed forever. He steps up to these hoodlums, saves the girl, and eventually catches a glimpse of the uniquely ringed finger holding the door open for the almost/soon to be victim. The finger belongs to Mahogany, a mysterious man playing butcher by day and possibly butcher, with a different sort of meat altogether, by night.The film then sets out to show Cooper's spiral downward into the conspiracies running through his head. The cops don't believe his theories and neither does his fiancé, but it doesn't stop him from putting his life in danger by stalking Mahogany on his daily travels, snapping photos as he goes, photos that get him into a prestigious gallery showing, one that could catapult his career, but also photos that haunt his dreams, driving him to discover what is really happening on the 2:00am train. His nightly journeys lead to some interesting camera-work with plenty of angular shots as well as the utilization of multiple reflective surfaces. Mirrors, windows, and even pools of blood are used to show events occurring behind the camera. Well, scratch that, events occurring to the camera, which is standing in for a character. One effective technique here is that there are many instances where the lens becomes our eyes; we watch as Mahogany comes at us with a knife or meat mallet, allowing the audience to enter the film and its carnage.There are other flourishes that standout as well, namely a spectacularly shot climatic fight sequence at the end where the camera whooshes from inside the subway car to outside, weaving in and out while it circles the mayhem transpiring inside. Yes, there are times when the computer effects work shows to be blatantly manufactured, (Ted Raimi's eye can attest to this), but it can't necessarily take you out of a tale so removed from reality in the first place. Even the fact that Vinnie Jones' malicious killer never utters a word adds to the atmosphere of the film. His sneers and wry smile do so much more to express what his character is thinking than words ever could. Jones is a force to be reckoned with, one who's secrets await us to be discovered along with the truth to why these midnight murders are happening.While, like most horrors, the look and feel, along with the villain's performance, really make or break them, the rest of the acting here lives up to its end of the job also. Bibb is a bit overbearing in a role that never adds very much to the plot anyways, but you can't fault her as much as the weakly written role. Her actions are the most head-shakingly convenient; we watch her do things that her character probably wouldn't do, but which are crucial to the progression of the story. I really enjoy Roger Bart, slowly becoming a genre staple with this and his turn in Hostel II, as the friend, a bit odd being that his face and emotive qualities scream villain; and Tony Curran as the train conductor is nicely foreboding and mysterious. But it is with Cooper, the lead in the story and ultimately the man for whom the film hinges on, that excels. You believe in his character throughout, whether in love with Maya and his work or becoming increasingly paranoid about what he thinks he sees. Cooper is invested in Leon and his actions show this fact; especially in the final shot, bringing chills as an ending bookmark to the film. It's a conclusion that cycles back to the opening scene, adding just one more layer of intrigue to an already successful exercise in brutality, the human psyche, and even a bit of the fantastically surreal.

Models and Boy Scouts advised to avoid riding subways alone after 2am

tt0805570

It is one of my unwritten principles about film criticism never to say things like "Such-and- such movie could only have come from the mind of so-and-so." It's a self-congratulatory phrase that sell-out critics (film critics and books critics alike) use in efforts to get their names on movie or book covers, and having been a fan of writers like Clive Barker and Stephen King since I was about 11 years old, I've heard it more than enough times for it to have become an empty cliché in my mind. Nevertheless, The Midnight Meat Train, my friends, could only have come from the mind of Clive Barker. Sorry about that. It has been probably something like 15 years since I read Barker's Books of Blood, and pretty much the only thing I remembered very clearly from The Midnight Meat Train were the creatures on the train and that thing with the tongue at the end of the story. That's an image that won't leave your mind easily! I also recommend reading "The Skins of the Fathers" and "The Body Politic," the latter of which was featured in the disappointing film Quicksilver Highway.Bradley Cooper stars as Leon, young photographer desperate to earn the recognition of a local famous artist named Susan Hoff. Unfortunately, his main technique is the gigantic cliché of trying to "capture the city as it really is," which has to be the most uninteresting goal imaginable for any photographer. Maybe he doesn't understand for how many decades that exact same thing has been pursued by countless tens of thousands of photographers. As is to be expected, Susan is unimpressed and wants something more, so Leon soon finds himself perusing the late-night subways trying to catch the perfect stills of violent crimes in progress.He discovers a man who has a habit of riding the last train past the last stop and butchering the remaining subway inhabitants like cattle, and Leon becomes obsessed with getting to the bottom of the crimes, only to discover that this particular series of murders has a history that can be traced back well over a century.The movie is padded pretty heavily, of course, given that it's adapted from a short story, but for the most part it stays true to the original tale. Mostly, certain things are fleshed out a lot more, characters are added, and other side elements are added completely, but the disturbing heart of the story is here.We could easily have done without Leon's atrocious girlfriend, however. She has to be the whiniest, most self-righteous and controlling woman that I've seen in a movie in years. They are meant to be getting married soon, and when Leon photographs an attempted gang-rape in progress and then the victim later goes missing (and the police don't believe anything is really going on), his girlfriend is not for one second supportive or interested or even concerned, she simply instructs him not to take night photography anymore. She informs him that he is to turn in his photos to the police and move on. She also has an emotional scene in the second half of the movie that is such a preposterously bad piece of acting that it made me want to throw myself in front of a meat train!As a horror movie it works surprisingly well. There is at least one shot that I've never seen done in any horror movie, and I've been a pretty avid horror fan for nearly two decades. Unfortunately, there are also more than a few scenes that simply make no sense whatsoever. Mahogany, the "butcher" (played by Vinnie Jones) has bloody gastric problems that are never really quite explained, although the more distracting aberration is his bizarre outbreak of marble-sized moles or warts that covers his chest, which he routinely cuts off with a scalpel and collects in jars in his medicine cabinet. It's a satisfactorily horrible affliction, to be sure, but it would have been nice if it hadn't just been thrown in randomly for effect.I was also a little confused by the Asian hottie that gets assaulted near the beginning of the movie. She nearly gets gang-raped by a group of gangsters, is barely saved, and proceeds to get on the subway alone anyway. It was weird enough that she was riding the subway home alone in the middle of the night anyway (she's a MODEL, by the way), but man, she sure made a quick recovery from the attack! Later, a group of kids are walking through the subway selling fund-raiser candy bars at 2am. I hope they get a dedication merit badge for that!The movie is shot in a properly metallic blue that permeates just about every shot of the movie, never letting you forget that you're looking at a series of horror movie sets, but this is still leaps and bounds better than the vast majority of horror movies being heaved into theaters these days. It has buckets and buckets of gore and so will definitely satisfy the gore-hounds, but it has an interesting story which prevents it from coming off as a stupid, mindless orgy of violence, like Eli Roth's head-smackingly stupid film Hostel. The thing that I have always appreciated about Clive Barker's stories (and Stephen King's) is that the better ones are not just scary movies, they have something of what Freud called the "uncanny." They tell stories of familiar things, familiar objects, but cast them in a light and place them in surroundings that make them off-putting on a level that lesser horror films can't even begin to aspire to. So even when the CGI blood effects are laughably bad, the arc of the story is taking us somewhere so different than what we're used to that it's pretty easy to overlook. For horror fans, this is a definite must-see.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-82

ur0562732

title: Models and Boy Scouts advised to avoid riding subways alone after 2am review: It is one of my unwritten principles about film criticism never to say things like "Such-and- such movie could only have come from the mind of so-and-so." It's a self-congratulatory phrase that sell-out critics (film critics and books critics alike) use in efforts to get their names on movie or book covers, and having been a fan of writers like Clive Barker and Stephen King since I was about 11 years old, I've heard it more than enough times for it to have become an empty cliché in my mind. Nevertheless, The Midnight Meat Train, my friends, could only have come from the mind of Clive Barker. Sorry about that. It has been probably something like 15 years since I read Barker's Books of Blood, and pretty much the only thing I remembered very clearly from The Midnight Meat Train were the creatures on the train and that thing with the tongue at the end of the story. That's an image that won't leave your mind easily! I also recommend reading "The Skins of the Fathers" and "The Body Politic," the latter of which was featured in the disappointing film Quicksilver Highway.Bradley Cooper stars as Leon, young photographer desperate to earn the recognition of a local famous artist named Susan Hoff. Unfortunately, his main technique is the gigantic cliché of trying to "capture the city as it really is," which has to be the most uninteresting goal imaginable for any photographer. Maybe he doesn't understand for how many decades that exact same thing has been pursued by countless tens of thousands of photographers. As is to be expected, Susan is unimpressed and wants something more, so Leon soon finds himself perusing the late-night subways trying to catch the perfect stills of violent crimes in progress.He discovers a man who has a habit of riding the last train past the last stop and butchering the remaining subway inhabitants like cattle, and Leon becomes obsessed with getting to the bottom of the crimes, only to discover that this particular series of murders has a history that can be traced back well over a century.The movie is padded pretty heavily, of course, given that it's adapted from a short story, but for the most part it stays true to the original tale. Mostly, certain things are fleshed out a lot more, characters are added, and other side elements are added completely, but the disturbing heart of the story is here.We could easily have done without Leon's atrocious girlfriend, however. She has to be the whiniest, most self-righteous and controlling woman that I've seen in a movie in years. They are meant to be getting married soon, and when Leon photographs an attempted gang-rape in progress and then the victim later goes missing (and the police don't believe anything is really going on), his girlfriend is not for one second supportive or interested or even concerned, she simply instructs him not to take night photography anymore. She informs him that he is to turn in his photos to the police and move on. She also has an emotional scene in the second half of the movie that is such a preposterously bad piece of acting that it made me want to throw myself in front of a meat train!As a horror movie it works surprisingly well. There is at least one shot that I've never seen done in any horror movie, and I've been a pretty avid horror fan for nearly two decades. Unfortunately, there are also more than a few scenes that simply make no sense whatsoever. Mahogany, the "butcher" (played by Vinnie Jones) has bloody gastric problems that are never really quite explained, although the more distracting aberration is his bizarre outbreak of marble-sized moles or warts that covers his chest, which he routinely cuts off with a scalpel and collects in jars in his medicine cabinet. It's a satisfactorily horrible affliction, to be sure, but it would have been nice if it hadn't just been thrown in randomly for effect.I was also a little confused by the Asian hottie that gets assaulted near the beginning of the movie. She nearly gets gang-raped by a group of gangsters, is barely saved, and proceeds to get on the subway alone anyway. It was weird enough that she was riding the subway home alone in the middle of the night anyway (she's a MODEL, by the way), but man, she sure made a quick recovery from the attack! Later, a group of kids are walking through the subway selling fund-raiser candy bars at 2am. I hope they get a dedication merit badge for that!The movie is shot in a properly metallic blue that permeates just about every shot of the movie, never letting you forget that you're looking at a series of horror movie sets, but this is still leaps and bounds better than the vast majority of horror movies being heaved into theaters these days. It has buckets and buckets of gore and so will definitely satisfy the gore-hounds, but it has an interesting story which prevents it from coming off as a stupid, mindless orgy of violence, like Eli Roth's head-smackingly stupid film Hostel. The thing that I have always appreciated about Clive Barker's stories (and Stephen King's) is that the better ones are not just scary movies, they have something of what Freud called the "uncanny." They tell stories of familiar things, familiar objects, but cast them in a light and place them in surroundings that make them off-putting on a level that lesser horror films can't even begin to aspire to. So even when the CGI blood effects are laughably bad, the arc of the story is taking us somewhere so different than what we're used to that it's pretty easy to overlook. For horror fans, this is a definite must-see.

Derailed by obsession - Another Vinnie Jones bad-guy production: Midnight Meat Train

tt0805570

Bradley Cooper as an obsessed shutterbug chasing down perennial bad-guy Vinnie Jones in a story that may remind some of a variation on the TV-series "Harvest Home"...Bradley, who I best recall as the reporter from "Alias", plays Leon - a photographer looking for the perfect shot in his exhibition curated by Brooke Shields (Now with her age showing - a hard jawline and raven's talons at her eyes), which is how he turns amateur detective tracking Jones as Mahogany the Butcher, played by the former UK soccer-star.This is despite the pleas of his girlfriend - Maya, you can see where he is getting in too deep - when he grabs a chunk of his best buddy Jurgis' steak and dabbing at the gravy despite having witnessed the carnage from the night before! While Maya was smart to have stolen Mahogany's train schedules, she was not smart enough to realise that the cop she ran to wore a pendant which had the same design as Mahogany's ring! Can you say; CONSPIRACY? At the end, where you see a most jarring denouement, it all takes a new development where the "butchers" are supposed to be humanity's last defense against pre-historic creatures who are either aliens, demons or two-legged dinosaurs disturbed from slumber by the subway's tunnels probing their lairs! Piers Anthony and a Western DC comic I read years ago implied if a person killed Death, then they would in turn automatically replace that feared Incarnate - I say that in reference to the titanic clash between Leon and Mahogany where things get haemoglobically surrealistic, and apart from shades of "Harvest Home", also reminds of the Phantom and the same Piers Anthony book...Steps were taken to ensure Leon did not speak but he can still write and he still seems to have a shred of Humanity in him, as shown by the snapshot of himself and Maya before he got derailed by his obsession!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-46

ur3387906

title: Derailed by obsession - Another Vinnie Jones bad-guy production: Midnight Meat Train review: Bradley Cooper as an obsessed shutterbug chasing down perennial bad-guy Vinnie Jones in a story that may remind some of a variation on the TV-series "Harvest Home"...Bradley, who I best recall as the reporter from "Alias", plays Leon - a photographer looking for the perfect shot in his exhibition curated by Brooke Shields (Now with her age showing - a hard jawline and raven's talons at her eyes), which is how he turns amateur detective tracking Jones as Mahogany the Butcher, played by the former UK soccer-star.This is despite the pleas of his girlfriend - Maya, you can see where he is getting in too deep - when he grabs a chunk of his best buddy Jurgis' steak and dabbing at the gravy despite having witnessed the carnage from the night before! While Maya was smart to have stolen Mahogany's train schedules, she was not smart enough to realise that the cop she ran to wore a pendant which had the same design as Mahogany's ring! Can you say; CONSPIRACY? At the end, where you see a most jarring denouement, it all takes a new development where the "butchers" are supposed to be humanity's last defense against pre-historic creatures who are either aliens, demons or two-legged dinosaurs disturbed from slumber by the subway's tunnels probing their lairs! Piers Anthony and a Western DC comic I read years ago implied if a person killed Death, then they would in turn automatically replace that feared Incarnate - I say that in reference to the titanic clash between Leon and Mahogany where things get haemoglobically surrealistic, and apart from shades of "Harvest Home", also reminds of the Phantom and the same Piers Anthony book...Steps were taken to ensure Leon did not speak but he can still write and he still seems to have a shred of Humanity in him, as shown by the snapshot of himself and Maya before he got derailed by his obsession!

The Tedious Train of Terror

tt0805570

I had rather high hopes for this film going into it as I still consider myself a Clive Barker fan (despite disliking every film based on his work except Hellraiser) and the trailer looked interesting. Unfortunately, however, The Midnight Meat Train does not capitalise on its interesting premise and is more damp squib than great horror. The main problem is definitely the plotting - in short, it just isn't interesting enough. The film is based on just a short story and clearly there wasn't enough material to stretch it out for one hundred minutes, meaning that the film feels drawn out and is not very exciting as a result. The plot focuses on a man named Leon, who is a photographer that specialises in pictures of the dirty city he lives in. He takes his work to some woman who sells photos and she tells him it needs to be better, which means Leon goes back out onto the streets to find something to take a picture of. He finds it in the form of a young girl being attacked. After convincing her attackers to leave, she gets on a train and is never seen again...leading Leon to investigate the disappearance.The title suggests that the film will be gory, and it doesn't disappoint in that respect. The Midnight Meat Train features plenty of people getting butchered in a variety of nasty ways; but the violence is spoiled for two reasons. First of all, the CGI is awful. Real special effects, when bad, can still be appreciated; but that isn't the case with CGI and the effects are just poor. Secondly, since the story is not interesting, the gore packs less of a punch than it should do. Bradley Cooper is decent enough in the lead - providing a kind of 'everyman' performance that is easy to like. Vinnie Jones is the main standout in a role he was pretty much made for; shame the film wasted him. The story really starts to drag when we reach the middle of the film and each revelation becomes more tedious than the last. I was starting to worry that the film might not actually go anywhere at all and unfortunately my fears were confirmed by the ending; which while definitely the best part of the film, leaves far too many questions unanswered and left me feeling like there was a lack of imagination in the writing of this film. If you want modern subway related horror, see Creep instead. That film wasn't great, but it was better than this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-121

ur2248099

title: The Tedious Train of Terror review: I had rather high hopes for this film going into it as I still consider myself a Clive Barker fan (despite disliking every film based on his work except Hellraiser) and the trailer looked interesting. Unfortunately, however, The Midnight Meat Train does not capitalise on its interesting premise and is more damp squib than great horror. The main problem is definitely the plotting - in short, it just isn't interesting enough. The film is based on just a short story and clearly there wasn't enough material to stretch it out for one hundred minutes, meaning that the film feels drawn out and is not very exciting as a result. The plot focuses on a man named Leon, who is a photographer that specialises in pictures of the dirty city he lives in. He takes his work to some woman who sells photos and she tells him it needs to be better, which means Leon goes back out onto the streets to find something to take a picture of. He finds it in the form of a young girl being attacked. After convincing her attackers to leave, she gets on a train and is never seen again...leading Leon to investigate the disappearance.The title suggests that the film will be gory, and it doesn't disappoint in that respect. The Midnight Meat Train features plenty of people getting butchered in a variety of nasty ways; but the violence is spoiled for two reasons. First of all, the CGI is awful. Real special effects, when bad, can still be appreciated; but that isn't the case with CGI and the effects are just poor. Secondly, since the story is not interesting, the gore packs less of a punch than it should do. Bradley Cooper is decent enough in the lead - providing a kind of 'everyman' performance that is easy to like. Vinnie Jones is the main standout in a role he was pretty much made for; shame the film wasted him. The story really starts to drag when we reach the middle of the film and each revelation becomes more tedious than the last. I was starting to worry that the film might not actually go anywhere at all and unfortunately my fears were confirmed by the ending; which while definitely the best part of the film, leaves far too many questions unanswered and left me feeling like there was a lack of imagination in the writing of this film. If you want modern subway related horror, see Creep instead. That film wasn't great, but it was better than this.

The best Clive Barker adaptation ever.

tt0805570

I was so intrigued by this movie the first time I saw it. This film has so many scares, thrills and chills. Midnight Meat Train is one of the most original horror films to be released to date. I really like the plot this film had. Based on a Clive Barker short of the same name. A photographer tracking a serial killer who murders people on the late night train. And he has to find a way to stop him from killing more people. Vinnie Jones was excellent as the main villain. He has that perfect charisma and face for these kind of roles. Every time I see him in a movie, I am so intimidated by him. Bradley Cooper did a good job playing the main character. If you like horror films, more likely than not you will like this film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-171

ur26145148

title: The best Clive Barker adaptation ever. review: I was so intrigued by this movie the first time I saw it. This film has so many scares, thrills and chills. Midnight Meat Train is one of the most original horror films to be released to date. I really like the plot this film had. Based on a Clive Barker short of the same name. A photographer tracking a serial killer who murders people on the late night train. And he has to find a way to stop him from killing more people. Vinnie Jones was excellent as the main villain. He has that perfect charisma and face for these kind of roles. Every time I see him in a movie, I am so intimidated by him. Bradley Cooper did a good job playing the main character. If you like horror films, more likely than not you will like this film.

A ride any horror fan should take.

tt0805570

I think the biggest question is how this movie would live up to the short story with the same name. I was a huge fan of not only the Midnight Meat Train short story, but The Books of Blood as well. So my expectations were a little high. Ryuhei Kitamura, the director best known for directing the foreign horror film Versus, had the huge task of this being his first American film. So, long story short, my expectations were high since I was a fan of the source material. Needless to say, I wound up being quite pleased with the film.Midnight Meat Train wasn't exactly a scary film, in my eyes. It was more of a bloody, thrill ride to me that just wound up being a lot of fun. The gore in it is really exceptional and Kitamura's cinematography really adds to the film. There's a scene where Mahogany knocks off a woman's head with that mallet he's always carrying around. The cool thing is you see everything from her perspective. You see her putting up her hands as a last defense before the final blow, the room spinning, the camera being on Mahogany and the headless corpse, he lowers his mallet as she blinks a few times, and the camera pans out from her eyeball to show her severed head. The film is just filled with a lot of shots like that that'll wind up catching any viewer's eye.Midnight Meat Train is a gore fest that stays true to its source material and is worth the watch for any fan of Clive Barker's or bloody horror films in general. My biggest worry was the ending staying in tact as I couldn't see how it could be done without terrible CGI or suits that just looked terrible. I don't want to say too much, but I will say this. Nothing was changed and I was completely satisfied with the ending. This is the best horror film I've seen in a long, long time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-155

ur5811408

title: A ride any horror fan should take. review: I think the biggest question is how this movie would live up to the short story with the same name. I was a huge fan of not only the Midnight Meat Train short story, but The Books of Blood as well. So my expectations were a little high. Ryuhei Kitamura, the director best known for directing the foreign horror film Versus, had the huge task of this being his first American film. So, long story short, my expectations were high since I was a fan of the source material. Needless to say, I wound up being quite pleased with the film.Midnight Meat Train wasn't exactly a scary film, in my eyes. It was more of a bloody, thrill ride to me that just wound up being a lot of fun. The gore in it is really exceptional and Kitamura's cinematography really adds to the film. There's a scene where Mahogany knocks off a woman's head with that mallet he's always carrying around. The cool thing is you see everything from her perspective. You see her putting up her hands as a last defense before the final blow, the room spinning, the camera being on Mahogany and the headless corpse, he lowers his mallet as she blinks a few times, and the camera pans out from her eyeball to show her severed head. The film is just filled with a lot of shots like that that'll wind up catching any viewer's eye.Midnight Meat Train is a gore fest that stays true to its source material and is worth the watch for any fan of Clive Barker's or bloody horror films in general. My biggest worry was the ending staying in tact as I couldn't see how it could be done without terrible CGI or suits that just looked terrible. I don't want to say too much, but I will say this. Nothing was changed and I was completely satisfied with the ending. This is the best horror film I've seen in a long, long time.

A nutshell review

tt0805570

This movie is a classic example of the mindless killing movies. Our main character is a not so talented photographer. On top of that he is also not too smart. He discovers a serial killer who kills people with big knives and even bigger hammers and then he starts following him with a camera. Yeah, very smart...Then we are shown some excessive gore scenes. In my opinion a bit less gore and a lot more scary stuff would have been better. I wasn't scared once during the movie but some scenes were too disgusting.The resolution was pretty much what I expected, the whole story was simple and predictable.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-91

ur18911506

title: A nutshell review review: This movie is a classic example of the mindless killing movies. Our main character is a not so talented photographer. On top of that he is also not too smart. He discovers a serial killer who kills people with big knives and even bigger hammers and then he starts following him with a camera. Yeah, very smart...Then we are shown some excessive gore scenes. In my opinion a bit less gore and a lot more scary stuff would have been better. I wasn't scared once during the movie but some scenes were too disgusting.The resolution was pretty much what I expected, the whole story was simple and predictable.

Midnight Meat Train

tt0805570

"The most terrifying ride you'll ever take" A photographer propelled to explore his dark side begins tracking a subway serial killer whose brutal butchery makes for the most nightmarish images ever captured on camera in director Ryuhei Kitamura's adaptation of a short story by horror heavyweight Clive Barker. Leon Kaufman (Bradley Cooper) is just another struggling photographer in search of the perfect subject. Encouraged to explore the sinister side of humanity by a prominent art gallery proprietor (Brooke Shields) who is set to display his upcoming debut, Leon goes against the wishes of his girlfriend, Maya (Leslie Bibb), and begins stalking notorious serial killer Mahogany (Vinnie Jones) -- whose sadistic murder spree has been making headlines all across the country. As Leon's fascination with Mahogany gradually grows into obsession, his descent into the killer's putrid world of murder begins to corrupt his soul while simultaneously dragging his concerned girlfriend down a perverse path of darkness from which there is no return.REVIEW: Midnight Meat Train originally is a short story from horror extraordinaire Clive Barker and is adapted to the big screen by Japanese director Ryuhei Kitamura. After a slew of disappointing 2008 horror flicks (ie Prom Night), 2008 just might have found its best horror film to date. First off, Ryuhei Kitamura absolutely knew what he was doing and it was pretty obvious in the movie. The way he handled the camera, the tension and the atmosphere. Pretty impressive seeing as this is his American film debut.Second, the gore. Some people say it was too CGI-ish and that they didn't like it but honestly, I had no problems with it. As much as I like old school syrup blood and plastic organs, I think its time we get on with the times and let the computer do its bidding. Lastly the acting, I couldn't be bothered with lead Bradley Cooper and his lady love Leslie Bibb, my mindset is focused to one character and one only: Vinnie Jones as serial killer Mahogany. The guy perfectly embodied the term: "Silent, but deadly". Vinnie Jones didn't speak almost the whole duration of the film and I still find his performance creepy, terrifying and menacing. Mahogany's weapon of choice: a butcher knife, meat hook and his favorite, a meat tenderizer. His preferred killing location: a one way ticket late train to hell. He will go down as a memorable serial killer and amongst the likes of Freddy, Michael and Jason.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805570/reviews-50

ur10252234

title: Midnight Meat Train review: "The most terrifying ride you'll ever take" A photographer propelled to explore his dark side begins tracking a subway serial killer whose brutal butchery makes for the most nightmarish images ever captured on camera in director Ryuhei Kitamura's adaptation of a short story by horror heavyweight Clive Barker. Leon Kaufman (Bradley Cooper) is just another struggling photographer in search of the perfect subject. Encouraged to explore the sinister side of humanity by a prominent art gallery proprietor (Brooke Shields) who is set to display his upcoming debut, Leon goes against the wishes of his girlfriend, Maya (Leslie Bibb), and begins stalking notorious serial killer Mahogany (Vinnie Jones) -- whose sadistic murder spree has been making headlines all across the country. As Leon's fascination with Mahogany gradually grows into obsession, his descent into the killer's putrid world of murder begins to corrupt his soul while simultaneously dragging his concerned girlfriend down a perverse path of darkness from which there is no return.REVIEW: Midnight Meat Train originally is a short story from horror extraordinaire Clive Barker and is adapted to the big screen by Japanese director Ryuhei Kitamura. After a slew of disappointing 2008 horror flicks (ie Prom Night), 2008 just might have found its best horror film to date. First off, Ryuhei Kitamura absolutely knew what he was doing and it was pretty obvious in the movie. The way he handled the camera, the tension and the atmosphere. Pretty impressive seeing as this is his American film debut.Second, the gore. Some people say it was too CGI-ish and that they didn't like it but honestly, I had no problems with it. As much as I like old school syrup blood and plastic organs, I think its time we get on with the times and let the computer do its bidding. Lastly the acting, I couldn't be bothered with lead Bradley Cooper and his lady love Leslie Bibb, my mindset is focused to one character and one only: Vinnie Jones as serial killer Mahogany. The guy perfectly embodied the term: "Silent, but deadly". Vinnie Jones didn't speak almost the whole duration of the film and I still find his performance creepy, terrifying and menacing. Mahogany's weapon of choice: a butcher knife, meat hook and his favorite, a meat tenderizer. His preferred killing location: a one way ticket late train to hell. He will go down as a memorable serial killer and amongst the likes of Freddy, Michael and Jason.