I know it has been discussed but I couldn't find a specific thread for it and couldn't remember the thread it had previously been mentioned in.

I am going to see this tonight. I am just preempting my post movie viewing thread.

Anyone seen it yet? I have heard mixed reviews for it. Some said it's really outrageous and has a lot of moments where they can't help but snicker/giggle. Others said it was a top-notch film. I know nothing about the people who said these things so I am going in with a pretty untainted view other than my bias towards Aronofsky films.

Please, if you talk about it, don't mention any spoilers, for my sake.

Though longer work hours this weekend will probably keep me from seeing this right away, I predict I'll love it and seven or eight people on this board will call it a pretentious load of bore.

i've been really looking forward to seeing this, regardless of the mixed reviews. but don't think i'll get around to catching it this weekend.

I'm not one of those people that loves Pi and Requiem for a Dream, but I still want to see this despite the bad reviews. I may hate it, but I can't help but be curious.

I'm seeing it tonight. I haven't been this excited over a movie in a long time.

And there's a Borders next to the movie theater so I might pick up the soundtrack at the same time.

Both the movie and the soundtrack are delicious.

And yellow.

We agree on something, Drinky. Be thankful

The only way I'd go see this movie if they got the "ass to ass" guy from Requiem in there somewhere.

soundtrack is fucking incredible.

The plot and main point of the movie I found to be really simplistic. All of the images and other visual tools enlisted I found made it seem like the story was way more complex than it really was. I am trying to figure out if that is a bad thing or a good thing because I find that telling the story separate from the way it was done would be lacking. Ultimately, I enjoyed the movie and there is something about the bizarreness of an Aronofsky film that at least makes your mind active. Also, the acting was incredible, IMO.

Pretty sad flick overall, but definitely worth a watch. Not a "Best Movie of the Year" at all, but still quite good and better than a lot of the other movies I have seen this year.

It's not everything I hoped for after a 7 year hiatus from Aronofsky, but I didn't feel like it was a waste of money in the least.

I love what Aronofsky does, but I think this is the case with all of his movies, particularly Requiem--it's a pretty conventional story of a couple of lives ruined by drugs, but his visual techniques make it great. Pi implies more complexity, but it sort of hides the ball by obscuring most of the answers under the main character's environment/paranoia. It sounds like the new one might be a combination of both. I might make this the first movie I see by myself in a while.

The princess doesn't want to see it?

It's not that--given the hot/cold reviews, I'd kind of like to see it without any self/other-consciousness.

Good summary. I really enjoyed the film and appreciated the fantastic performance from Hugh Jackman (I really couldn't see Brad Pitt in that role). I bought the soundtrack before I saw the film yesterday and played the entire CD before I went to bed. Who knew the guy from PWEI (awesome band by the way) had something like this in him?

I know some of the reviews are saying that the characters weren't given enough time to develop, but I think the modern and future versions of Jackman's character were interesting, and I actually cared about what happened to them. Considering that Aronofsky split the movie into three different time periods, I'd say that's pretty impressive.

First off the visuals in this movie are amazing especially the part where it takes place in space, the plot is not the strong point of this movie but rather the symbolism and the way it portrays loss and how humans try to fight death even though it is an important part of life. It is a good movie but not a great one by any means

Okay I've got a big Spoiler question....
























...so he got all buddist because he thought reincarnation was life, where she understood death to be okay without reincarnation? Is that the gist? I saw the movie with a church group so they obviously disliked the heavy buddist connotations and mistook them for overall theme. I did too at first but am begining to see that was just Tom's view and that we see it as being almost complete folly.

In any case I loved how the conquistador's story evolved into a fable. That was really well done.

Lots of church groups would do well to adopt a few more Buddhist ideas. Not all ideas, but some. They could co-opt them and call it "positive christianity" or something, so they wouldn't feel all pagan-culty and whatnot.

Has anyone read the graphic novel?

I personally am a big supporter of meditation and focus, the concept of Zen if you will. I also think yoga is incredible.

What bothers me, along the lines of what you're saying, is that anything involving a combination of physical and spiritual wellness is instantly dubbed "new age", and is instantly carted off to the torture room as being deemed heretical.

Yep. Like, my celtic christian beliefs don't sit too well with my old church. Too bad for them. I'm Scot-Irish. Not Hebrew.

I saw this last night and was a bit underwhelmed. I got the message and the visual scenes were pretty neat but I'm convinced this movie is a Aranofsky vanity vehicle to show off his new beautiful bride.



Plus, I wasn't that impressed with the Mansell soundtrack either.

my girlfriend

What Chappy heard:

blah blah blah blah....




...blah blah blah blah blah.

I thought it was good, but a little slow. The Buddhist stuff annoyed me a little. I'm not sure what being in the Lotus position or doing Tai Chi has to do with floating in a bubble through space towards a Supernova. It looked pretty cheesy. Otherwise, it was good.

If you like Rachel Weisz, there's some movie that I saw on the Sundance channel called "I Want You." She's in it, and it's basically softcore porn posing as an arthouse flick. I don't think you get to see that much of her though.

Anyway, SPOILER QUESTION.....






































Do you think he is taking the tree to the supernova trying to reincarnate Rachel Weisz? Or just to keep the tree alive? And I'm presuming it's the tree he planted over her grave, but in a lot of the scenes they had it doing the same things as the tree of life.

SPOILER RESPONSE:









































My thoughts were that the future and the past were aspects of the fictional story. The past was Rachel's version of what was written. The future was Hugh's daydreaming about keeping her alive. Ultimately, when he "finished it" he incorporated his imagination to her story. That's not a very good explanation. But basically the only thing that ACTUALLY happened was the stuff in 2000. The rest was just complicated stuff about how she died and he became Okay with it. I am pretty sure that the future and the past were just "stories" and helped explain both character's views and thoughts on death and life, etc...