The Fountain (Darren Aronofsky, 2006)

Hugh Jackman portrays a conquistador, a doctor and a futuristic astronaut all in the same film.
--
****

It is a time of great suffering. Blockbusters, their egos swelling with multi-million dollar budgets, trample through the box offices, leaving the helpless independent and art-house films battered and beaten in their wake. We feed these monsters with our money until they leave the theater and then again when they return four months later on DVD. Don’t get me wrong, I love an action blockbuster as much as the next American male (“Casino Royale” anyone?). But where are our Kubricks? Where did all the Kurosawas, the Fellinis and the Bergmans go? When did cinema cease being an art and when did movies become cheap two-hour thrills that we throw money at, watch and forget?

These questions are all rhetorical, of course, and some would argue that they are simply a result of my subdued film elitist tendencies. But I digress.
“The Fountain” is the remarkable new film from director Darren Aronofsky. Like the recent “Stranger than Fiction” (which I also loved), it is a breath of fresh air during this period of absolute blockbuster domination.

“The Fountain” is a richly multi-layered love story, spanning over 1000 years and following three separate couples (each portrayed fantastically by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz), who may or may not be incarnations of the same people. Each couple is haunted by mortality and the idea of death, and they seek out (in their own ways) the secret to eternal life.

The plot is intricately woven and, at times, exceedingly confusing. The story hops around quite a bit through the film’s entirety. One moment, we’re following the quest of a sixteenth-century Spanish conquistador to find the Tree of Life; three minutes later, we’re in the year 2500 and a bald astronaut is speeding across the galaxy inside a bubble. The film moves fast and it doesn’t wait for the audience to catch up.

“The Fountain” is also one of the most visually breathtaking films in years. The images are striking and surreal, but the beautiful shots aren’t there just to look pretty. Aronofsky uses cinematography as a storytelling tool, and he masterfully connects the three plotlines through visuals. This, blended with the rich story, superb performances, and abundance of symbolism and meaning, makes for a fully engrossing, deftly constructed piece of cinema.

But I must level with you: walking out of “The Fountain” as the credits rolled, I wasn’t entirely sure if I enjoyed it or not. I was confused and mentally exhausted. In fact, it wasn’t until the next morning that I finally decided that I had liked the film. Once I reached that point , I was itching to experience “The Fountain” again.

It’s not a film for the casual filmgoer, and that’s the simple truth of it. It’s a divisive movie, one that will generate reactions at the extreme ends of the loved it/hated it scale. For me, “The Fountain” was really an enjoyable little gem. It’s a Kubrick-esque foray into love, loss, mortality and the fragility of human life. If you’re bored with the typical mainstream movies and are looking for a complex, well-crafted film, you owe it to yourself to see “The Fountain.”

Babel (Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2006)

Don't worry too much about these characters. You won't be seeing a whole lot of them.
---
**

About halfway through Alejandro González Iñárritu’s “Babel,” I asked myself, “What do a sexually frustrated, deaf-mute Japanese girl and a wedding in Mexico have to do with a presumed terrorist shooting in Morocco?” For those of you playing at home, the answer is: absolutely nothing.

“Babel” follows four separate stories, all connected through paper-thin plot contrivances. Susan (Cate Blanchett) and Richard (a grey-haired, sunken-eyed Brad Pitt) are a troubled married couple vacationing in Morocco. Meanwhile, two local boys receive a hunting rifle from their father. In Tokyo, a young deaf-mute named Chieko (Rinku Kikuchi) struggles with her disability and self-image. And in San Diego, a nanny (Adriana Barraza) takes Susan and Richard’s children across the Mexican border to attend her son’s wedding. All of their lives are thrown into disarray when a stray bullet from the aforementioned hunting rifle hits a tour bus and seriously wounds Susan.

If that plot synopsis sounded tedious, it’s because it is. “Babel” is a film with everything going for it: a stellar cast, a talented director, phenomenal cinematography. But herein lies the problem; “Babel” simply has too much going for it, and it lacks the focus necessary to achieve any semblance of meaning. It ultimately spreads itself too thin and becomes bogged down under the weight of the loose subplots, which wander aimlessly through most of the film.

The multiple plotlines are an enormous hindrance to this film. While intriguing and supposed “central” characters like Susan and Richard receive a criminally minuscule amount of screentime, the Mexican wedding and Chieko subplots overpower and distract to the point of annoyance. The Chieko portion of the film is especially useless and out-of-place. It feels like an entirely separate movie, in no way connected to the central plot until the last five minutes of the film. How can I focus on the terrorist act in Morocco when I’m too busy worrying about the deaf girl in Tokyo?

“Babel” also commits the cardinal sin of being far too long. The plot moves sluggishly and meanders about for its entirety, and it clocks in at a whopping 142 minutes, which is entirely too lengthy for the infinitesimal amount of story progression taking place. It becomes a labor to watch.

The performances, for the most part, are strong. But due to the large number of central characters involved, we never get a sense of who these people really are. Cate Blanchett, possibly the strongest talent in the film, is reduced to laying on a dirty rug for two hours. Sadly, I found that I really couldn’t care less about any of these characters. It’s a very detached movie.

I hate to compare “Babel” to last year’s horribly contrived “Crash” (I still haven’t forgiven the Academy for that one and I don’t think I ever will), but the two are strikingly similar in their approach. If “Crash” taught us that falling down the stairs in slow motion cures racism, then “Babel” convinced me that getting shot in the neck solves marital problems. It’s a surprisingly shallow film in this way, and it simply throws any sense of realism or nuance out the window.

I can’t guarantee you’ll hate it. There’s a fair share of critics out there singing the praises of “Babel.” Heck, if you enjoyed the sad excuse for a film that was “Crash,” you might absolutely love it. But for me, “Babel” was nothing more than glorified Oscar bait. It’s a great looking film, with strong performances and a great director to support them. But ultimately, “Babel” just feels empty and lifeless.

New Spidey trailer hits the net

Spider-Man sports a new black suit and an angsty attitude in this third installment of the franchise, but he hasn't lost his sense of patriotism. Cue music!

---

Eager fans have been waiting for another glimpse of Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man 3" for months now, after the debut of the teaser. Tonight, we we're given a delicious taste of the three-course meal that is "Spider-Man 3."

The trailer is an I-Film exclusive. Catch it here:

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2783985

And one of my awesome readers also brought to my attention this link, where you can watch the trailer in HD.

http://www.ifilm.com/presents/spiderman3

In the trailer, we see much more footage of Spidey villains Sandman and the presumed Hobgoblin. The evil Venom is absent in the trailer, but I have no doubt that the character design will be phenomenal.

Watch the trailer to sate your hunger until May 04 and leave your thoughts here!

'The Prestige' (Christopher Nolan, 2006)

Hugh Jackman realizes that static electricity isn't a toy after rubbing a balloon on the wall. Hugh, honestly, didn't your mom teach you anything?
---
****

Strangely enough, Christopher Nolan’s “The Prestige” works much like the magical illusions it depicts so splendidly. On the surface, it’s an intricately woven, beautifully shot piece of period piece cinema. But this spectacle has a fair share of tricks up its sleeve, and absolutely nothing is what it appears to be.

Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) are competing magicians in the mysteriously intriguing world of Victorian-era London. When Borden creates the ultimate magic trick – in which the magician disappears into one door only to reappear out of another almost instantly – Angier becomes obsessed with his rival’s secrets. What starts as a grudging contest soon escalates into a life-long and often violent rivalry between the two fixated men.

“The Prestige” is an impressive achievement in every respect. From the cast and performances (Michael Caine is excellent and David Bowie is just awesome in a small but memorable supporting role), to the dialogue and cinematography, “The Prestige” is just fantastic cinema.

It’s a film that could easily lean on cheap thrills and plot twists to carry the plot, but it refrains. Instead, the numerous reveals (which are simply incredibly, by the way) are like the icing on the cake – the sprinkles on the already delicious sundae that is “The Prestige.”

Christopher Nolan, who consistently releases quality cinema, has done it again. “The Prestige” is easily one of the best films of the year, a multi-layered story rich with first-rate performances and extensively breathtaking set-pieces.