Had The Fountain been released in the 60's, I can only imagine the sort of audience it would have garnered. Trippy imagery, metaphysical discussion, and elements of New Age religion compose a very inquisitive project from director Darren Aronofsky, better known for Requiem for a Dream and Pi. The director describes the film as a "weird" one, and proposes watching the final cut several times to fully understand the story. This is a messy decision. Although some mainstream audiences can appreciate interpretive film, it's not a wise move to make a film so cryptic that it may detract viewers after one or two viewings. A self-described science-fiction epic, The Fountain is a question without an answer; a puzzle without a solution. Although visually it’s a masterpiece, looks can only get you so far. Quoting Aronofsky, the film is "the most ambitious thing I've done to date and the biggest challenge," but despite this strong drive, the ball doesn't quite make it out of the park.

It'll be a task for me to summarize this, but here goes. The Fountain spans an entire millennium - from 1500 to 2006 to 2500. Thomas Creo (Jackman), first known as Tomas, is a conquistador in 16th century Spain. He is sent to the Americas by Queen Isabella (Weisz) to discover the source of life - cryptically known as the Fountain, or the Tree of Life - which is mapped on a Mayan knife found by Franciscan priest Avila (Margolis). Fast-forward 500 years, and Thomas (Jackman) is a scientist searching for a cure for cancer, as to save his dying wife Izzi (Weisz), while at odds with fellow doctor Lillian Guzzetti (Burstyn). Fast forward another 500 years, and Tom is living in a biospheric dome along with the Tree of Life suspended in space, headed straight for a nebula. All three storylines are shaped around a book written by Izzi in the 21st century - entitled 'The Fountain' - which she urges Tom to finish. The ending, left to the main character's interpretation, is as esoteric as it can get.

Whether Brad Pitt stayed on the role that Jackman later accepted, the performance would have been the same. Thomas is a character so driven to discover the justification of life that his personality and development is completely ignored. Perhaps it was the director's intent to leave Thomas as a neutralized character, but for a one-track audience, that's not such a bright idea. Jackman is an unsympathetic gentleman, carrying a scowl or a frown with every minute of screen time he gets. His chemistry with Weisz is fleeting, and since his role is larger, he trumps his love interest's performance.