The story is so confusing I have a hard time summarizing it. As well as I can figure it out, it's about a doctor (Hugh Jackman) trying to invent a cancer cure for his wife (Rachel Weisz) before she dies. Instead, he discovers what appears to be a cure for aging. Meanwhile, she has written a story about a Spanish queen (also Weisz) who sends her champion (also Jackman) off to New Spain to find the secret of immortality, as shown on a Mayan map. A third story line shows a guy (Jackman again) in a weird space-bubble thing, hallucinating about the two Weisz characters and begging a tree (not played by Weisz) not to die. It's not clear, but space-bubble Jackman might be the doctor, still alive thanks to the immortality drug, or maybe Jackman's imagination of himself in the future. Other interpretations are possible too.

The story was co-written by Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel. Aronofsky also wrote the screenplay and directed. Handel's only other credits (on IMDB) are "Kabbala Scholar" in Pi and "special thanks" for Requiem for a Dream, Aronofsky's two previous features. Anyway, it's a mess. Most David Lynch movies make more sense. I rate it poor.

On the other hand, Aronofsky's directing is very good. It's not the masterwork he showed in Requiem for a Dream, but he still shows that he has the stuff as a director. I think Aronofsky is just a small step from being a first-class film-maker. He either needs to learn how to create a coherent story or leave story creation to others and stick to directing and adapting others' stories into screenplays, as he did with Requiem.

The acting was admirable also. Jackman was excellent in the modern and Spain sections, and pretty good in the space-bubble portion. Weisz was excellent in her parts too. Ellen Burstyn (a co-star in Requiem), the main supporting character in the modern portion, apparently the doctor's boss, was also excellent. The smaller parts were solidly performed also.

The cinematography and visual effects were amazing. The cinematography was particularly striking when the camera was on Rachel Weisz -- one could feel some of the director's love for his real-life fiancée. The visual effects didn't look like the usual computer graphic effects -- and apparently they weren't. According to IMDB's trivia, the major visual effects were mainly images photographed through microscopes. The lighting fit the mood well in all cases.

I also thought the music was very good. Sometimes it felt a bit manipulative, which was a flaw in the sense that film music is supposed to suggest emotions without the audience noticing that the music is influencing them. But other than sometimes being too obvious, it was good music. (Like other aspects of the film, it falls short of Aronofsky's previous film, but Requiem had one of the best film scores I've heard, so it's a tough act to follow.)

This is a difficult movie to give an overall rating. It's a good example of a movie with some great work -- the visuals, the acting, and the directing -- that go to waste due to failures in other areas -- the story. Even the story deserves partial credit, as a failure that inspires some though, rather than just boredom. It may also have a future as a stoner movie, as the "star child" portion of 2001 was decades ago. Overall, I rate it fair.

Goofs: The astronomy was messed up. (I know there are some other goofs too, but I found these myself. I've sent them to the film's IMDB goofs section too, but they haven't shown up there yet.)

There was a shot of the modern couple looking at the Orion nebula through a 60 mm telescope. They saw it in full color, which is impossible in such a small telescope. (In huge telescopes, maybe 60 cm and up, some people claim to be able to see a slight hint of color in that object, but I haven't seen it.) The image is also wrong in showing somewhat more detail than was shown in the scene. They'd have needed either very dark conditions and long dark adaptation, or a larger telescope (20 cm, maybe), to see as much detail as was shown -- and they'd still see no color.

Another problem with the astronomy was that Weisz said the nebula was a place where a dying star was triggering the birth of new stars. The Orion nebula is indeed a birthplace of new stars, but there's no dying star there.

Rating: The US rating of "PG-13" seems reasonable. The violence in the Spanish section shows little blood, nudity is hidden by the sides of a bathtub, and the sex following the tub scene is merely implied by a cut. (Trivia: I read that it was originally rated "R", but re-rated "PG-13" after re-editing and appeal.)

Screening: 7:20 pm Thursday, Seattle east suburb (Bellevue Galleria).
Audience: About 300 seats, only 12 people.

Goodies: Decent Chinese after the movie.

Ads (in progress when I arrived):

• The Good Shepherd - This is an older ad that tells that the movie is about the early years of the CIA, but emphasizes the personal story between a main character and his wife, rather than the spy plot emphasized in some other ads.
• Blood Diamond - The usual ad: A man in Africa finds a huge diamond, and people try to take it from him, throwing his life into hell. Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Connelly fight over who should be the one to help the man.

Tags: astronomy, film, review