Oz: The Great and Powerful

Director: Sam Raimi
Starring: James Franco, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, Michelle Williams, Zach Braff, Joey King, Bill Cobbs, Tony Cox, Abigail Spencer
Running Time: 130 min.
Rating: PG

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

When it's firing on all cylinders, Sam Raimi's The Wizard of Oz prequel, Oz: The Great and Powerful really works. And when it isn't, it doesn't. The film's a success whenever it's attempting to find inspiration from the classic 1939 MGM film and a failure when looking to the Star Wars prequels for it. While this isn't quite as flawed as that, it still earns that comparison through some clunky dialogue stretches and an overkill of unnatural looking CGI effects that frequently overwhelm the integrity of the production. It helps there's at least some narrative riches from which to draw, even if the filmmakers and Disney were legally and creatively hamstrung by having to adhere strictly to L. Frank Baum's Oz novels instead of the classic film, which Warner Bros. owns. But whatever issues exist shouldn't be pinned on James Franco, whose entire persona seems perfectly matched to the title character and his story arc, which is surprisingly well executed. And he doesn't even give the best performance in the film. Looking down the credits, it's easy to guess who does, but even that wasn't a given in this situation. Despite feeling almost achingly mainstream to a fault, nothing seems completely "safe" when you're messing with cinematic mythology. The movie definitely has problems, but still has enough virtues not to dismiss entirely.

In a clever visual callback to The Wizard of Oz, the movie opens in black and white in Kansas in 1905. Oscar "Oz" Diggs (Franco) is a struggling, small-time magician in a traveling circus known under his stage name, "Oz: the Great and Powerful." But he's hardly either, earning a reputation as a lying, egotistical charlatan who not only weasels and cheats his way through performances, but verbally berates his loyal assistant Frank (Zach Braff). He's also a serial womanizer, seducing a local girl (Abigail Spencer) helping with his show and rebuking his former flame Annie (Michelle Williams), who's now engaged to another man. But when Oscar escapes a precarious situation in a hot air balloon, a tornado transports him to the Land of Oz, where he's mistaken by a smitten Theodora (Mila Kunis) as the "Wizard" who's arrived to overthrow the Wicked Witch. As the opportunistic Oscar plays along with the ruse, Theodora's sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz) is more skeptical and has her sights set on destroying Glinda The Good Witch (also Williams).

Many would claim that the the movie's strongest section is the black-and-white Kansas prologue and when Oscar arrives in Oz and the picture fades into color, things just aren't as interesting as it flirts with being just another overstuffed spectacle. While it's tough to completely disagree with that, I'll at least give credit where it's due to Raimi for wisely cribbing that famous color transition from the 1939 classic, even if it can't possibly carry the same impact. As a setting, his version of Oz is problematic in exactly the same way most of these imagined movie universes now are with no one looking like they're actually a part of their environment. The effects resemble a video game and it's plainly obvious the actors are working against a green screen to the point that it almost took me right out of the story. Then after a while I got used to it, despite this being a classic case of more being less and material basically begging for simpler, more practical effects. If the intention was for Oz to look and feel like a real place, then it's fair to say that's the film's biggest failing. The one effect that undeniably does work is the China Doll character voiced by Joey King, which realistically resembles a porcelain doll and displays a whole range of childlike mannerisms and facial expressions that never look and feel anything less than human. Finley the monkey isn't as digitally well rendered but Zach Braff turns in some inspired vocal work.

Between the effects and some of the exchanges that initially take place between Oscar and Theodora, it's hard not to think of the Star Wars prequels with Mila Kunis acclimating herself about as well (or as poorly) as Natalie Portman did in that franchise, tripping over some clunky dialogue. Franco, however, has the right idea and plays Oscar in his classic James Franco laid back style in which he seems almost amused by the lines he's delivering. The result is almost comparable to his stint hosting the Oscars, except this time while awake. In this particular setting, that works and he certainly doesn't shy away from playing him as a slimy jerk with only a few redeeming qualities. It's kind of a great performance, and unlikely we we'd have the movie we do without it since he does get you to at least care about the character, regardless of his likability level.

The marketing team went to almost extraordinary lengths to conceal the identity of the Wicked Witch in what turned out to be the worst kept secret since the twist in The Crying Game. To be safe, I won't reveal anything other than that the actress is thanklessly asked to do a full-on imitation of Margaret Hamilton's iconic performance in the 1939 film and fares better than expected considering what she's up against. It's easy to argue that when that somewhat complicated transformation takes place and Glinda arrives on the scene the movie really starts to find its footing. But more accurately, it's the unmatched Michelle Williams, who's made her career starring in smaller, artsier projects that probably don't cost half as much as the catering on this one, coming to the rescue in a capacity we've rarely ever seen her in. It almost takes a bit just to wrap your head around it, but her crossover into "movie star" territory is as awesome as you'd expect it to be. Alleviating any potential concerns her skills would be wasted trying to elevate fluffier, more mainstream material, Williams speaks every line and delivers each gesture as Glinda as if she not only understands exactly what she's saying and doing, but actually believes it deep within her soul. Her warm embodiment of pure goodness and optimistic charm provides the perfect contrast to Franco's character, acting as his guide on the journey and bringing the story full circle. It's largely because of their scenes together everything eventually comes together in a semi-satisfying way.

Considering the legal restrictions, it's a miracle this film was made at all and a credit to the source material that it still very much feels like an Oz story, even with the absence of key elements we tend to directly associate with it. And yet it still kind of doesn't. I mostly blame that on the technology, which somehow looks worse than it did in 1939 because it looks better. If that makes any sense. With a relatively strong script and two great performances it's hard not to wonder how good this could have been if it wasn't Disneyfied within an inch of its life and the not so special effects didn't look so awful. But we already have that movie. It's called The Wizard of Oz. Williams and Franco are the primary reasons to see this but considering you can pretty much see any other project of theirs at random and extract greater value, that's just not enough. Of course, I'm not in the target audience for this anyway so it hardly matters. For all the little details Raimi got right, he got the big thing wrong. The sense of magic and wonder we all associate with Oz is at least partially missing because it feels like it was made by a committee more concerned that everything look and feel expensively fake. And that's just too big a big hurdle to clear when attempting to resuscitate a property with a history as substantial as this.         

The Lovely Bones

Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, Rose McIver, Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon, Michael Imperioli, Reese Ritchie
Running Time: 135 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW

Sometimes you flip through the channels and stumble upon one of those true crime shows re-enacting murders that took place decades ago. If you notice, usually the questions concerning the actual event are addressed in agonizing detail but it's the other more important ones that leave you with a sinking feeling in the bottom of your gut. What were her final thoughts before it happened? Did she have a boyfriend? Was she popular at school? What did she want to be when she grew up? What would she look like now? What would she say to her killer? How did her parents deal with it? What would she say to them? Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones is 135 minutes of that sinking feeling, the first 40 of which qualify as a flat-out masterpiece. The rest of it is just...INSANE. So insane Jackson should probably be asked to undergo mandatory drug testing for the decisions he made, some of which are among the strangest I've seen in a prestige project supposedly aimed at mainstream audiences.

Reaction to this much-maligned adaptation of Alice Sebold's 2002 bestseller was almost destined to split viewers into two camps: Those who read the novel and hate what he's done to it and those who never read the novel and are impressed. I fall into the latter category, but wouldn't plead ignorance to any of the film's perceived or actual flaws, remaining completely cognizant of why it's attracted so much animosity. But the one complaint against it I won't accept is that it in any way "wussed out." Especially when it so thoroughly denies the characters and audience closure, or at least closure as it's traditionally expected in American movies. Or not a single story beat going down as it normally would in this genre. Are these problems? Or did Jackson actually find a way to capture the sloppiness of everyday life?

Sometimes you know a movie has its issues but you're too wrapped up in what works to care, especially when what works represents some of the boldest filmmaking of the year. It achieves too much in terms of visuals, storytelling, sound and especially acting to be written off just because things don't match certain preconceived notions. Maybe a safe alternative slavishly true to the source material would have technically been "better" and sent fans of the novel home happy, but the film wouldn't have been as compelling. So I just went with it, which is necessary to fully appreciate Jackson's trippy head-scratcher of an adaptation that refuses to play by the rules.

In the quiet Pennsylvania suburbs in 1973, 14-year-old murder victim Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) narrates her story from beyond the grave. An aspiring photographer, she dreams of the future while harboring a hopeful schoolgirl crush on Ray (Reece Ritchie). And it's actually kind of brave how unabashedly sentimental the film is in presenting it, as this guy of her dreams speaks with an English accent and quotes Shakespeare in front of her locker. Ronan (best known for her Oscar nominated turn as the junior tattle-tale in Atonement a few years ago) takes center stage in the film's opening hour capturing in her expressive face and gigantic blue eyes all the optimism, pessimism, fear and excitement of being a young high school girl with her whole life ahead of her. That life is cut short by neighbor George Harvey (Stanley Tucci), cryptically referred to throughout the story by Susie as "My Murderer," a live, in the flesh composite sketch of the creepiest neighborhood pedophile imaginable. Every parent's worst nightmare. With thinning hair and a goofy mustache he'd resemble a cast-off from a 70's variety show if Tucci wasn't so frightening playing him, in the process inviting us to speculate how this vicious monster could have emerged from a seemingly low-key, mild-mannered nerd. When he's not building miniature dollhouses in his solitary residence he leads a double life as a serial rapist and murderer with sights set on his next target. On the way home through a cornfield on a late December afternoon, the distracted Suzie is cornered in his underground lair.

Jackson's decision not to show Susie's rape has resulted in huge controversy. This begs a question: Why would anyone clamor to see the rape and murder of young girl depicted on screen when it's perfectly clear what happened anyway? For the sake of staying true to the novel? Not only would such an approach be irresponsible and ineffective, her encounter with him is so terrifying and tension-filled that showing it would probably be going overboard. Of course, had Jackson chosen to unnecessarily dramatize it in all its grisly detail, fans of the book would still be up in arms unless it matched their vision of the words Sebold put on the page. He definitely came close enough to showing it for me because I found the pivotal scene between the two almost unbearable to watch as is. You can just sense what's coming and Ronan's portrayal of Susie up to that fateful moment makes you so attached to the girl that you want to reach through the screen and save her from what's coming. Had the rape been shown, a different, more uncomfortable feeling would have replaced it.

It's unfortunate the opening 45 minutes had to eventually end because there was no chance the rest of the picture could live up to it. And it doesn't. But it does completely fly off the deep end in genre-bending ways that strangely make the film more absorbing and complex. From the ads I was expecting a light Ghost Whisperer-type second act where Susie helps supply her family with clues from beyond the grave to bring the killer to justice. But nothing like that occurs. She's stuck in what's referred to as the "In-Between" and looking at the CGI used you wouldn't be wrong in assuming that means somewhere in-between an allergy medication commercial and a screen saver. Yes, Jackson probably overdoes it with the effects and it doesn't always mesh with the more serious Earthbound scenes concerning the fallout from the crime, but this is still supposed to be a 14 year-old-girl's vision of the afterlife so that makes sense. Rather than being an active participant in the "investigation" into her murder, she's instead attempting to spiritually come to terms with what happened and watching as her parents, Abigail (Rachel Weisz) and Jack (Mark Wahlberg) deal with the loss in radically different ways. She also must observe in pain as her younger sister, Lindsey (Rose McIver) jumps ahead of her and experiences the adolescent joys she'll never know.

At least on paper, Wahlberg is miscast and seems entirely too young for the role, though the original choice of Ryan Gosling is even more perplexing (how could anyone have considered that?) Wahlberg had to know he was miscast because there's no other way to explain how he would could so completely throw himself into this with an intensity that manages to cover up for it. He's never played a part like this before and it's likely he won't again anytime soon just because it's so far out of his comfort zone, but I was really impressed how believable he was as an obsessed father looking for vengeance. Weisz is underutilized, disappearing mid-way through the story for reasons unclear, but I can't pretend to care when her excised sub-plot was supposedly a ridiculous affair with the investigating detective (played by Michael Imperioli). Taking Weisz out of the equation so Wahlberg and his shaggy hair can act up a storm opposite Tucci was actually a brilliant move, taking the film into thriller territory. We know from the beginning who the killer is but the characters still kept in the dark as Mr. Harvey, lurking in the shadows, senses the walls slowly closing in on him and clumsily tries to cover his tracks.

The creative choices made following Susie's death represent how far the screenwriting strays from conventional expectations. More shockingly, I've heard the haywire events Jackson puts on screen are relatively faithful to Sebold's narrative. Whether the weirdness that unfolds was intentional or not is up for debate but what isn't is how off-the-wall and hilariously inappropriate a musical montage featuring Susan Sarandon as the boozy, disaster-prone grandmother is. Put in for comic relief and tonally inconsistent with just about everything else in the picture, it shouldn't work, but does precisely because it's so entertainingly wild, temporarily lightening the dark proceedings. But that's just the start of it.

An eccentric former classmate of Susie's APPEARS to be some kind of vessel through which Susie can communicate from the grave with her loved ones and guide them, but the girl ignores the signals and alerts no one of what's been happening. And despite hiding in plain sight and being just about the creepiest looking neighbor anyone could have, Harvey isn't initially considered a suspect. The brutal slaying isn't uncovered via actual evidence gathered by the inept detective or the family, but how it actually would be in real life--due to the killer's carelessness and stupidity. That's best represented in his laughably ineffective approach to disposing of the most important physical evidence there is. He makes the mistakes a real murderer would and in turn his potential accusers make even dumber mistakes that would prevent his apprehension.

When Harvey's found out, he does EXACTLY what all murderers do in that situation when they know their number's up. His actions are so realistic and true to life it's no wonder many viewers were turned off and probably found it anti-climactic. The script is observant enough to know that victims and their families don't always get closure and the bigger the atrocity, the less chance there is of it. You always these stories on the news where the victim's body never turns up, the perpetrator isn't found, then years later he's discovered lying in the bottom of a ditch somewhere. Karma can work in silly, almost cruelly comical ways and it doesn't get much sillier than the fate that befalls George Harvey at the end of this film. Jackson deserves credit for having the guts to go through with it.

Even though the 1960's still seem to be more creatively fertile ground in movies, it's the 70's that always tend to lend itself to more interesting cinematic treatment and the production and costume design on display here is unmatched by any recent picture set in that decade. It's like a time-travel trip full of unforgettable images and colors supplied by cinematographer Andrew Lesnie and backed by Brian Eno ethereal, electric guitar score. While the CGI scenes of Suzie's "In-Between" (featuring floating gazebos and glass bottle ships) are arresting it's the sinister shots in the cornfield and of Harvey through his miniature dollhouses that pack the biggest punch. The moment Suzie realizes exactly what's happened to her and watches his actions directly following the crime would be enough to keep anyone up at night, as is her "tour" of his previous victims.

There's the tendency to assume because the film is rated PG-13 and adapted from a widely praised bestseller that corners must have been cut and darker elements watered down to attract a bigger audience. Having not read the novel, I can't comment on how true that is but watching this I could still tell that this story must have been very, very difficult to adapt. What's interesting is that when bad word-of-mouth started spreading, the studio re-focused their marketing from older moviegoers to teen girls, who were apparently responding more favorably to the film and its message. That's a curious fact considering how this more closely plays as a dark descent into hell, embodied by Tucci's terrifying performance. Unlike most screen villains, he's scary because  he's a real, recognizable threat. And his victim represents an adolescence lost forever, an idea never forgotten amidst the film's envelope-pushing craziness. Part thriller, part metaphysical drama, The Lovely Bones is the best Unsolved Mysteries episode that never aired. Just as long as you don't read the book first.

Definitely, Maybe

Director: Adam Brooks
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Abigail Breslin, Rachel Weisz, Isla Fisher, Elizabeth Banks, Derek Luke, Kevin Kline
Running Time: 112 min.
Rating: PG-13

**** (out of ****)

For the past couple of weeks nearly everyone who knows my taste in movies has been telling me that I have to see Definitely, Maybe. It could be partially because they’re aware of my abnormally high tolerance for romantic comedies, or “chick flicks,” as they’re more commonly known. It could almost be described as an abusive relationship because although I enjoy watching them, I view them mostly as a joke. I almost look forward to the bad ones just for a good laugh because I find the ways that they’re bad fascinating and the reasons women love them perplexing.

So when the mostly positive reviews for Definitely, Maybe came pouring in and it was being referred to as a “chick flick for guys” I knew this could really be good for some more chuckles. What I wasn’t prepared for was that I’d have to check my jokes at the door for this one. It’s startlingly ambitious and almost epic in scope, going places other movies in this genre never do with a premise that’s brilliant and fun. Now, finally, I can recommend a “chick flick” without fear of embarrassment at all. I wouldn’t hesitate telling anyone I encounter how much love this movie.

At its center is a compelling mystery with an outcome that’s seriously in doubt and many guys watching will put themselves in the position of the protagonist and wonder what choice they would make. It’s the rare comedy that understands that sometimes we make the wrong decisions and have to live with the consequences. That life speeds by so quickly it’s often hard to catch up. That people come and go and disappear and reappear in our lives when we least expect it. Things happen. Paths cross. Timing is everything. And none of it seems forced or contrived, but develops organically from the situation.
The focus is on a protagonist who not only has an interesting love life, but an interesting life filled with people who are intelligent and we’d actually want to spend time with. Guys will see a lot of themselves in him while girls will no doubt relate to one or more of the women he’s encountered along the way. It also sees an opening to depict a time period that has been underexposed in movies and milks it for everything it’s worth. As a result, everything feels so fresh and original and the second I saw that the story was taking place in this era I nearly jumped out of my seat. For me it felt like going home again because it’s a period I feel a very close connection to. I was prepared for the possibility this might be good, but I never would have guessed I’d be this blown away. Critics and audiences have actually undersold just how much this film has to offer everyone.

38 year-old advertising executive Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) is going through a divorce and looks forward to the few days a week he gets to spend time with his 11 year-old daughter, Maya (Abigail Breslin). After her school implements a sex education program she starts probing her father to tell her the story of how he and her mother met and got married. After some initial reluctance he caves in, but tells the story under his terms, changing names and facts and leaving it up to Maya to guess which one of the three main women in his life becomes her mom.

There’s his college sweetheart, Emily (Elizabeth Banks) who he leaves in Wisconsin in 1992 so he can work in New York as a gopher on the Clinton Presidential campaign. While there, he meets Emily’s longtime friend, Summer (Rachel Weisz) a sexy, sophisticated journalist whose having a bizarre affair with famous writer Hampton Roth (a fantastic Kevin Kline). The final suspect is his best friend April (Isla Fisher) a free-spirited copy girl who wants to travel the globe. The film already has an intriguing premise in place but its what it does with that premise that’s so impressive. Will starts his journey as a young, idealistic go-getter determined to change the world and make his mark but the world has other plans.

There’s a certain naivety to him when he first arrives in New York and these three women not only play a huge role in changing the course of his life, but also defining who he is as a human being. The smartest thing director Adam Brooks’ script does is convince us that all three of these women could very well be “the one” for Will. A lesser screenplay would have just presented them as stereotypes, like “the brain” or “the slut” and it would have been obvious by about a half hour into the picture who he would end up with.

Too many times in today’s romantic comedies female characters are completely defined by being in a relationship with a man and can’t think or act for themselves. Here, the ups and downs in Will’s relationships with these women are partially caused by actions they took because they’re independent, strong and intelligent. But that’s not to say Will’s deluded idealism and desire to please doesn't get in the way as well.
Brooks makes it interesting for us because none of these women are the “wrong choice” for him necessarily; they’re all just very different. I’d be lying if I said there isn’t a favorite that the audience (both male and female) will naturally gravitate to and Brooks knows this and plays with it, but not in a way that feels the slightest bit manipulative. And because this is a film that actually does reflect real life for a change, we know that’s no indication that she’ll be the last woman standing.

Guys watching will have a strong opinion who the best choice is, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best choice for Will, or that he can even end up with her. Just when we think one of them is out of Will’s life for good they’re realistically pulled back in. Through masterful writing, Brooks puts the viewer in a situation where any of the three possible results would be a complete shock. This isn’t just a great setup because the pay off delivers in a huge way.

Then there’s Will’s relationship with his daughter, arguably the most important one of the film. I had gotten involved in this guy’s fascinating life that I almost completely forgot that his daughter was listening to all of this. That she had to hear all these things that he did and yet in a strange way, through these flaws, he actually looks like a better father to her. I had also completely forgotten that this story ends in divorce making the story that much more painful for this kid. What’s going to happen with that? There’s real doubt. This script is working well on so many different levels it’s almost astounding.

That’s not even mentioning the little life details it slides in, especially when it comes to the ripe, inspired setting of New York in the early ‘90’s. The city is a living, breathing character in itself informing Will’s life as much as the women in it and the Clinton era provides the perfect backdrop for his emotional virginity. As the administration wears on Will’s idealism understandably wears off and some disillusionment and cynicism sets in. The film tells us as much about our country’s mindset during this time period as it does his.
There are so many accurate and funny details concerning the early and middle part of the decade slid in I wouldn’t dare ruin them. One of the joys for me watching this was thinking back to what I was doing back then, which rather frighteningly at times resembled some things that occurred on screen (albeit at a far younger age). I’m sure I must have found this section of the film far funnier than most, but I bet more than a few would relate to it.

There's truth in the sketching of the most minor characters as well, like Kevin Kline’s drunken, pompous politico. You know that feeling when you’re watching a movie and you think, “I know someone EXACTLY like that.” Well, it's actually true this time. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve encountered just like this guy and after you’ve seen the movie and meet this character you’re probably going to feel really sorry for me. And Kline nails it, also adding considerable depth that's probably lacking from his real-life counterparts. I would have watched a separate movie about just him and his relationship with Weisz's character.

Ryan Reynolds has shown us glimpses of something recently with his work in The Nines and Smokin’ Aces, but this is the most fully realized performance of his career thus far. It isn’t the most dramatically challenging, but he seems effortlessly comfortable in it. It helps he’s an actor that doesn’t come with any preconceived notions. His Will comes off as a guy women would want to be with and guys would want to have a beer with and watch the game. He’s inoffensive and believable to every audience, a rare feat in a romantic comedy.

All three actresses are uniformly excellent in different ways. Elizabeth Banks has probably the least amount of screen time of screen time of the three but makes it count while Rachel Weisz brings an aura of sexy mystery to Summer, the woman who just may be out of Will’s league. In what seems like her millionth attempt in the past two years, Isla Fisher finally delivers in a role that requires much more than just standing there and looking pretty. I never got what the big fuss was about her as an actress, but I got it now. Reynolds shares the best chemistry with young Abigail Breslin, who gives a child performance that never seems cloying or forced and she even manages to get off many of the film’s most memorable lines.
At just under 2 hours, Definitely, Maybe could be considered long for a romantic comedy but it’s one of the few times I remember watching the clock and wanting it to slow down. I was hoping Brooks would come up with even more complications and obstacles to keep this going and prolong the mystery. I couldn’t wait to see what happens but there was another part of me didn’t want to find out. It’s a relief to finally see an ending that’s earned. This is a character went through hell and high water to arrive there and it wasn’t through the machinations of a contrived screenplay.

I’ve referred to this film many times as a “romantic comedy” but I should stop because it isn’t. It’s more of an entertaining, involving human drama with romantic and comedic elements mixed in. It would play well with fans of the television show How I Met Your Mother because it takes that high concept and expands it, bringing more depth to the premise. It’s much smarter and more involved than anyone could expect at first glance and I was surprised how much of it hit so close to home for me (unfortunately though not the part about choosing between three beautiful women).

How can I give THIS four stars? Easily because there isn’t a flaw to be found and it does what it’s trying to do perfectly in the most challenging of genres. It could have gone wrong in so many different ways but didn't. This movie isn’t going to change the world but it’s one of the best romantic comedies to come a long in recent years and with the amount I’ve seen I should know. Guys should consider themselves lucky if their girlfriends force them to watch this. Definitely, Maybe isn’t just a “chick flick,” it’s a great film.

The Fountain

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, Ellen Burstyn, Stephen McHattie, Mark Margolis, Sean Patrick Thomas, Ethan Suplee
Running Time: 96 min.
Rating: PG-13

***1/2 (out of ****)

Darren Aronofsky will likely be accused of a lot of things during his career, but no one can ever accuse him of lacking ambition. With The Fountain he swings for the fences and attempts out to make the most thought provoking film of our time. He doesn't, but he comes dangerously close and leaves you thinking that one day he will. You're not likely to see a film in this or any other year that splits audiences and critics like this one. Going into The Fountain the worst thing you can do is prepare to take anything literally. Don't expect a beginning, a middle or an end. Don't expect a protagonist or an antagonist, or even a plot, as we have learned to commonly define one. More importantly, don't expect any easy answers, or really any answers at all. Instead, expect to be amazed and challenged.

Anyone interested in seeing this film (or even if you're not interested and happen to) should be warned: the first viewing will be very, very rough. It'll go slow and you'll have no idea what you're watching. When it's over you'll likely feel angry, frustrated and have little desire to watch it again. These are feelings you'll have to fight because this is a film that must be seen multiple times to effectively form an opinion on. After seeing it three times I came to the conclusion that I'd at least formed somewhat of an opinion, whether I was sure of it or not, and could at least attempt to write a review. Even now as I write this I'm not completely sure. With this film I don't think you ever can be, and that's the point.

It's not a matter of understanding it. There's nothing to understand. It's a matter of absorbing everything that's put in front of you. Aronofsky (who also co-wrote the script with Ari Handel) did something that few filmmakers today would even attempt: a movie about ideas and feelings that challenge you as a viewer. It's been called self-indulgent, pretentious psycho- babble by many critics. It isn't, but in another's hands it could have very well been. Aronofsky's intentions are too noble to qualify for that. Aside from being one of the most visually beautiful movies you'll ever see, the reason it succeeds is mostly due to the moving love story at the film's core and the performances of the leads. They have the near impossible task of selling all of this, and succeed.

There are three interlocking stories told in The Fountain. One takes place in 16th Century Spain, another in our 21st Century, and the third deep in space in the 26th Century. Arguably the most important of the three takes place in the present as drug researcher Tommy Creo (Hugh Jackman) is attempting to save his wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz) from in inoperable brain tumor by performing tests on monkeys. As time continues to run out for her he becomes obsessed with a certain compound he believes will reverse his wife's brain tumor, even if it means blatantly breaking medical protocol and upsetting a close co-worker (Ellen Burstyn) to do it. Meanwhile, Izzi herself becomes obsessed with ancient Mayan myths about creation and death and is one chapter away from completing her book, appropriately titled "The Fountain."

This book makes up the second story in the film and tells of a Conquistador (also played by Jackman) in 16th Century Spain who's sent on a mission by Queen Isabella (also played by Weisz) to find the Tree of Life (which supposedly holds eternal life), the location of which is revealed on a hidden map. The third story thread of the film concerns a meditative astronaut named Tom (a bald Jackman) who travels in a spherical bubble toward a golden nebula in space and is haunted by visions of Izzi.

That's really all that can be revealed without spoiling anything and I've probably told too much. The stories do come together, but not in any literal way you'd expect them to and the last 10 minutes of the film are a visual wonder not unlike the infamous "stargate" sequence that closed 2001: A Space Odyssey. In fact, The Fountain shares so much in common with Kubrick's sci-fi masterpiece someone could reasonably accuse Aronofsky of ripping it off. You can definitely see the influence, but it's really just a starting point for the director to tell his own original story of love and mortality that spans through the ages. What it does have most in common with Kubrick's film is that it's just as inaccessible upon an initial viewing and as polarizing for audiences. It has to be. When you make a film as different as this and one that dazzles with deep metaphysical ideas instead of special effects there isn't going to be easy access for everyone.

Some parts of The Fountain work better than others It's most effective when it's in the present and dealing with Tommy's struggles to cure his wife, but that's where it should be most effective. The entire foundation of this movie (and all three stories in it) is built on their relationship and if that isn't portrayed just right then the movie collapses. It has great ideas and incredible visuals but the real power comes from the performances of Weisz and Jackman. Jackman is a reliable actor but I sometimes got the impression in his earlier performances that he was putting on a show and trying to entertain us. That's okay, but I was always curious how deep he could go as an actor if he were given a better role. Here he has it. Actually, he has three of them and does the finest work of his career.

Weisz's performance is likely to be overlooked simply because of the nature of the film she's in. It may be off-putting for some to see such a realistic portrayal of a cancer patient amidst a film that could be easily classified as surreal. In a way, she's our only connection to the humanity behind the film and Weisz bravely surrenders herself, never afraid to go to the sad and dark places the story demands. Ironically these two actors were not even supposed to be playing these roles. Originally Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett were attached to star, but backed out due to script and production issues. In fact, the escalating budget and Pitt's departure caused the film to actually cease production in late 2002. Supposedly this film was a long, torturous journey for Aronofsky to get this made with his creative vision intact. It was worth it.

While it would have been very interesting to see Pitt and Blanchett in the roles, it's unlikely they could have done a better job. It just would have felt different, but not necessarily better or worse. After watching the film though, you'll likely find it difficult imagining anyone other than Jackman and Weisz playing these parts. Aronofsky initially resisted casting Weisz because he has a personal relationship with her and didn't want to appear to show favortism, or worse, have it destroy their relationship. I'm glad he changed his mind and hopefully we can see more corroborations with the two the in the future because it's a rare opportunity to see one of our most talented directors direct one of our best actresses. He also wrote in a small part as Tom's colleague for Ellen Burnstyn, whom he directed to a Best Actress nomination on his last film, 2000's incredible Requiem For A Dream. It's really a nothing role, but she adds some depth to it, making a case why good actresses should be cast in even the smallest parts.

On DVD and in the comfort of your own home is the worst possible way to watch this film, but unfortunately the only option available. Its mind-blowing visuals are meant to be experienced in a theater, preferably IMAX. I hope you have a big screen. While I was watching the film I wondered how the visuals could possibly look so good and real, until I and found out Aronofsky hardly used any computer-generated images, but instead real close-up photographic images. Unfortunately because the film was a commercial flop it will give clueless studio executives further encouragement to continue the ridiculous CGI route. I'd put any visual effects scene in this film up against anything in Spiderman 3, which was probably shot at five times the budget, and it would win. The visuals used here also very closely resemble those in Kubrick's 2001, which came out in 1968, and you don't hear anyone complaining that film looks even the slightest bit dated today.

Much like 2001, I can see this film enjoying an incredibly long shelf life and gaining fans as years go on. Some may complain Aronofsky's reach exceeds his grasp on this film and I could see their point as the film does try to do everything at once. It's a historical epic, a romance, a mystery, an action/adventure and a science fiction fantasy all compressed into 96 minutes. What a relief it is though to find a director who actually does reach for greatness and tries something different. Everyone may not love The Fountain, but they'll have to respect it.