THE FOUNTAIN (2006), dir. Darren Aronofsky

Drubbed by a lot of critics when it first came out, it’s possible to see why “The Fountain” has mostly been forgotten. Given the premise, the quest for a way to defy death, as well as the titular reference to the fabled Fountain of Youth, one expects high adventure in the “Raiders of the Lost Ark” mold. But although the film’s canvas is vast and there are a few scenes involving swordplay, this is a highly-personal drama built mostly around two characters.

Still, there’s plenty to appreciate about “The Fountain,” starting with the craftsmanship of Aronofsky, who also wrote the screenplay. It’s his third film overall, and the follow-up to his critically-acclaimed “Requiem for a Dream,” in which the legendary Ellen Burstyn – who has a small role here as well – crawled through grimy subway stations under the influence of diet pills.

As in “Requiem,” which made drug addiction seem scorching and personal, Aronofky takes a potential epic and presents it in a surprisingly intimate style. Most of the film consists of first-person point-of-view shots from the perspective of his two leads, Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. Despite the presence of a few ancillary characters, they are clearly the focus, even as the film crisscrosses between the Spanish Empire, the modern world, and the celestial heavens.

In one of the three storylines, Jackman and Weisz play a couple named Tommy and Izzy Creo, respectively, and their performances ground the film emotionally. We care about their love story, which faces one of the most familiar obstacles in the history of romance: coming to terms with one partner’s death. But “The Fountain” has its heart in the stars, and Aronofsky, who previously showed a gift as a visual poet, finds the eternal within the ordinary: endless waves in a wallpaper pattern; streetlights extending into the distance.

One of the best set-ups involves a dark room with small, hanging lanterns resembling stars, making it appear as if Jackman takes a walk through constellations. There are also quite a few camera shots looking down on people’s heads, which makes sense in the context of the film, since characters are constantly looking into the faraway distances, both for and at the answer to their questions.

I’ve spent the last few paragraphs noting the aesthetics in “The Fountain” and trying not to give away much more. Truly, this is a movie to be experienced, but has a message that can be understood by nearly everyone. However, if you’ve ever read Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein,” there will be a shudder of recognition when one character, who is a doctor, says, “Death is a disease, it's like any other. And there is a cure. A cure. And I will find it.”

Things don’t end quite the way “Frankenstein” did, although there is one special effects scene in which Aronofsky, in keeping with his reputation as an innovator, successfully meshes the lush, beautiful, and grotesque. Now I really won’t say more except “The Fountain” will likely anger and frustrate some, while others will find themselves moved, maybe even more appreciate of life and what they have.

Overall rating: **** (out of ****)

CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER (2006), dir. Zhang Yimou

Emperor Ping (Chow Yun-Fat) explains to his family how they are like a circle residing inside of a square, the latter of which represents his will. “Curse of the Golden Flower” shows that, despite a royal decree demanding obedience, trying to fit a round peg into a square hole threatens to tear both family and kingdom apart.

This Chinese-language film, directed by the celebrated Zhang Yimou, takes place around the year 928, as Emperor Ping returns to the imperial palace where Empress Liang (Gong Li) and two of his sons reside. The palace is a labyrinth of vibrant colors, which serve to reflect passions trapped by formality. At the beginning, it’s the sexual tension existing between the Empress and her stepson, the Crown Prince (Liu Ye); later, it will be rage and jealousy.

Adding to the court intrigue is the Empress’ mysterious anemia, which causes uncontrollable trembling throughout her body. We quickly learn that for the last ten days, the emperor has been adding a new ingredient to her medicinal tea – a cup of which she must drink every hour – slowly causing her to lose her mind.

But the Empress gets word of the scheme, and confides to her other son Prince Jai (Jay Chou), who has returned to the palace for the annual Chrysanthemum Festival, that she won’t be going without a fight. What follows are secret alliances, betrayals, some unexpected bloodshed, shots of the beautiful Gong Li looking progressively weaker, and ultimately, the attempted coup itself.

Yimou cast two legendary Chinese actors as his leads, and Yun-Fat and Li are appropriately authoritative and defiant, respectively. However, besides those two actors and the remarkable costumes, one gets the feeling the main draw is supposed to be the climactic battle sequences, which prove Asian cinema has come a long way to catching Hollywood with regards to computer-generated special effects.

Unfortunately, while productions like this can match the scale of big canvas epics like “Troy,” there’s also much of the fakery reputed to have dragged down that film. At one point, endless platoons of soldiers come pouring out of the imperial palace to launch a surprise counterattack. It’s impressive for a moment, but upon further review, defies all logic. How did anyone manage to fit this many soldiers inside without the other side noticing them, and within the short time frame the plot gives?

That single gripe is but a symptom of the larger problem with “Curse of the Golden Flower:” it's overproduced and fatally overdone. It wants to be a court drama as well as a martial arts film, but there are no thrills to be had in the intermittent wire fights, despite choreography by Siu-Tung Ching, who worked on Yimou's superior “Hero” and “House of Flying Daggers.” In fact, they seem downright derivative of “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and Yimou's better movies.

Finally, “Curse of the Golden Flower” makes the mistake of leaning too heavily on special effects and bloody spectacle as it lurches towards the end. As Fat and Li recede into the background, the audience is left vulnerable to seemingly endless shots of eviscerations, dead extras encased in gold and silver armor, and images of flowers stained with blood. Maybe this movie should have been called “Slumming Actors, Slow-Motion Car Wreck.”

Overall rating: ** (out of ****)

SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006), dir. Bryan Singer

I would be curious to hear what longtime Superman readers think of this new movie, which takes liberties with key characters, and lacks any real hardcore, superhero-on-supervillain action. But personally, I loved this movie. I found it to be unexpectedly thoughtful for a big-budget epic, and a super-sized improvement over the last two installments, which were Kryptonite to the franchise.

The folks behind this pseudo-sequel wisely decided to pare the mythology down to its most familiar elements. Naturally, there is Clark Kent/Superman, played this time around by actor Brandon Routh. Despite the unenviable task of having to fill Christopher Reeve’s big red boots, Routh does a credible job as both doofish Clark and stoic Superman, actually channeling the late actor’s voice and mannerisms at times.

The main plot involves Superman’s return to Earth after five years away in space. After making a grand re-entrance, a world-threatening crisis emerges in the form of arch-nemesis Lex Luthor, who remains bald, evil, and quite possibly the most ruthless capitalist around. This time, he has advanced technology from Superman’s home planet at his disposal. Using crystals that are about the size of a large paperweight, Luthor – played snarkily by Kevin Spacey – plans to submerge entire continents, killing billions of people for profit.

Counterbalancing this threat to Superman’s professional life is news that Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), his great love and Clark’s reporter colleague, has acquired a fiancée as well as a young son. The latter development might cause grousing amidst comic book purists. For me, it only proved that director Bryan Singer and screenwriters Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris understood the theme that was present throughout the best “Superman” films: That there is a price to pay for being the world’s savior. Young Daniel (Tristan Lake Leabu), whom Lois nicknamed “the munchkin,” represents the family Superman gave up because, well, he’s Superman. Outer space called, and he had to accept the charges.

To date, I have read only one review for this movie, which came from a prominent film critic who was disappointed by it. He found “Superman Returns” to be leaden and not as much fun as “Superman” and “Superman II,” which were released in 1978 and 1980, respectively. Frankly, I’m disappointed by his disappointment. True, this movie is not replete with unabashed goofiness the way “Pirates of the Caribbean” was. It wants to treat the myth of its character with respect and reverence, and to the extent that I was left inspired and in awe, it definitely works.

Let us not forget that Superman is more than just a guy in tights who can leap tall buildings in a single bound. He is singular to the degree that he has godlike power, and also to the extent that he is an orphan, the last survivor of a doomed planet. Singer and company craft a satisfying character arc using that oft-overlooked bit of biographical information. As for the part about “Superman Returns” not being fun, that disapproving critic needs to re-watch the scenes where the Man of Steel catches a passenger plane in mid-air, and blocks an armor-piercing round with his eyeball. Whoo.

Overall rating: **** (out of ****)