Jim: I don’t know who your readers are, but I’m surprised to hear such a virulent mob exists for this movie. It would be interesting to see whetherThe Fountain held up for them past opening weekend. Maybe, maybe not. I will say that the responses here have been lengthy, so Aronofsky did at least succeed in spurring some intense discussion. Thanks for commenting.

Amanda: That’s the best compliment I’ve heard today. Thank you so much. As soon as I saw your name in this comments box, I knew you weren’t writing to bash The Fountain. Any photographer would have to be impressed by Aronofsky’s eye. And from what I’ve gathered about your taste, Aronofsky seems to make the kinds of movies you cotton to.

I really liked this film, despite all of its flaws–the main one, as you mentioned, being the flatness of the characters. It actually suffers from the weight of its themes and the beautiful intricacy of the plot. Yet, visually it’s gorgeous and does remind one of the kinds of SF/occult films being made in the 60’s and 70’s. I saw it in the theatre, and I have to say it was an amazing experience.

You go into one of these “reach exceeds its grasp” things hoping, pulling for the director to make it work, and when he doesn’t–even on a relatively miniscule budget (I think budgetary limitations make a director hone and perfect his art, rather than restrict it)–you have to acknowledge the miss.

I didn’t enjoy “The Fountain” but I admired the production design of what was there, especially the “space” scenes, and especially the sound design, which I thought the best of the year.

But the whole thing left me thinking of the old Barbara Walters question “If you were a tree, what sort of tree would you be?” and whistling “The Circle of Life.”

I played it for the wife on DVD, and her reaction (she’s a sentimentalist) was “Eh?”

Oh, and in answer to Neil Fulwood’s Rachel Weisz question: “Fred Claus.” She’s still a fine actress with a fine eye for parts.

This is a fine series, Joe. Cutting, but not catty. Responsible.

Render that line in full and it’s a kinder, if still brutally accurate, description of what went wrong with ‘The Fountain’. Aronofsky’s reach didn’t so much exceed his grasp as exceed what Hollywood was willing to put up for such an essentially existential, cerebral and (by dint of being existential and cerebral) uncommercial a picture.

I found ‘The Fountain’ a frustrating viewing experience – I’ll be the first to admit that. It’s flawed. It drops the ball in several places. Dialogue is stilted. It skids past its artistic principles in several places and falls flat on its arse in the sandlot of pretentiousness.

But for all that I can’t find it my heart to dislike it. Maybe it’s because, after the breezeblock-to-the-head experience of ‘Requiem for a Dream’, it was an affirmation just to have Aronofsky make a film about the eternity-spanning endurance of love. Maybe it’s because Rachel Weisz was in it and nothing she’s ever appeared in can be devoid of merit purely because of her inclusion.

Or maybe it’s simply because Aronofsky’s reach DID exceed his grasp. Maybe making ‘The Fountain’ was like trying to make ‘2001′ with a budget of $2.50. Ultimately, at least he tried.