Darren Aronofsky's The Wrestler is surely one of the fall's most enigmatic releases -- and one of the most eagerly awaited. Bad Taste got hold of the first production stills from the film, and it looks every bit as creepy and moody as you'd expect from the man behind Requiem for a Dream and The Fountain (which was awesome despite its generally negative reception).

The movie is about a retired professional wrestler, played by Mickey Rourke, who is trying to survive on the small-time independent wrestling circuit. It sounds campy, but I think it's more likely to be grim -- I've read some stories about that scene (anyone else read Swan Song by Robert McCammon?) and it sounds, if anything, awfully depressing. These photos confirm that, I think, as does the fact that Clint Mansell is once again writing the musical score.

The movie premieres in Venice next month, then Toronto shortly thereafter. It doesn't have a US distributor yet, but I'm guessing that won't last long. Check out a couple more photos (including one featuring Marisa Tomei as a stripper) in the gallery below, then see the rest over at Bad Taste.

With a title like Tree of Life, it had sounded like Terrence Malick's next project was to be in line with his last. It even was set to star his lead from The New World, Colin Farrell -- co-starring with Mel Gibson. But Tree of Life doesn't appear to be about Spanish conquistadors and such -- which is good, since The Fountain already covered that territory. Of course, the actual plot of Malick's script is unknown, and despite the fact that it was going to be shot primarily in India two years ago, the same locations might not be used now that the project is up and running once again.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Tree of Life could now star Heath Ledger and Sean Penn, who appeared in Malick's The Thin Red Line. The trade states the actors, as well as Malick, are in talks but that shooting is expected to begin in March. River Road Entertainment, which worked with Penn on Into the Wild and with Ledger on Brokeback Mountain is heading the project with the company's founder, William Pohlad, and Sarah Green (The New World) producing.

As I said, little is known about the film. THR mentions the usual "plot is closely guarded" irritant, and to rub in the annoyance tells us an insider could only say that it's a "complex drama." According to a bit of trivia on the IMDb, Tree of Life actually originated in the summer of 1978, when Malick began working on the project, which was then titled Q. Considered his most ambitious project, Q was originally a multi-character story set in the Middle East during World War I, but it also featured a prehistoric prologue with a Minotaur. Then, by the end of the year, the prologue became the whole film. Like The Fountain, it seems like the plot took place over a long, long time. Unfortunately, in 1979 the director and Paramount apparently had a falling out about money; after that Malick disappeared for twenty years.

Anyway, does it really matter what Tree of Life is about? The important thing is that we could get a fifth feature from Malick!

I really, really wanted to like The Fountain. I remember running out of a TIFF screening to hurry over to the next theater to get a good spot in line. Unfortunately, the line was gargantuan -- larger than any I'd ever seen at the festival. Visions of Requiem for a Dream popped in my head while I waited, and I was sure it would draw me in and wow me with both the story and the visuals. Not quite. Response from Cinematical, like the rest of the movie-going public, was mixed -- like me, Kim Voynar wanted to like it, but was disappointed, while Scott Weinberg would have no problem recommending it, and Ryan Stewart called it a "gorgeous, time-bending epic."

Now you might remember that an unauthorized commentary was in the works, because Darren Aronofsky wasn't happy with the amount of features on the film's DVD. The director said: "Everything at the studio was a struggle. For instance, they didn't want to do a commentary track cause they felt it wouldn't help sales. I didn't have it in me to fight anymore. Whatever." Instead of fighting, he just made his own commentary with his friend, Niko, and it's now available on the site that he built for the filmmaker. So, if you're a big fan of the film, go to Aronofsky's website and rejoice. If you're not, maybe learning about the artistic intent will make The Fountain flow, rather than dry up.

[via AICN]

I didn't notice this when I recently reviewed the new DVD for The Fountain, but director Darren Aronofsky was making his displeasure with the stripped-down disc known on his blog page. As I noted in my review, the disc wasn't exactly free of extras -- it contained one medium-sized documentary, broken up into six chapters -- but other than that, there was nothing. On his page, Aronofsky says "As many of you can tell it [the DVD] is light on extras as compared to my previous DVD releases. Everything at the studio was a struggle. For instance, they didn't want to do a commentary track cause they felt it wouldn't help sales. I didn't have it in me to fight anymore. Whatever." He also notes "Niko, my friend who did the doc on the DVD came up with a novel idea. We recorded a commentary track ourselves. We're gonna post it on a site soon, http coming soon. You can play it and watch the flick and hopefully you'll enjoy it." He wraps up by noting that "I do hope to do a big special edition at some point, but for that to happen the DVD is gonna have to sell."

In other Aronofsky news, he recently chatted with Empire and confirmed to them that he will be doing "an adaptation of Noah's Ark." Aronofsky says "I'm pretty much done with the script." Hilariously, he defends himself against comparisons to Evan Almighty, noting "This is not a comedy. It's funny, because Noah's always been done as a comedy. This is definitely more the sci-fi version. It's the traditional Noah story, but it's told in a serious way. More fantasy than comedy."

Darren Aronofsky's gorgeous, time-bending epic The Fountain is arriving on DVD today, and I recently had a chance to sit down and watch it on a small screen for the first time, after seeing it six or seven times in theaters last fall. My original verdict -- that it was one of the five best films of 2006 -- still holds up, although I have to say that its greatest strength lies in its amazing visuals, so it needs to be seen in the theater first. If you're watching it for the first time on the small screen, you're really missing a crucial part of the experience, especially where the final segment is concerned. There are too many distractions in a home environment -- or in mine, at least -- to allow you to wrap yourself up in the serene starscape as Tommy (Hugh Jackman) and Tree Izzy (Rachel Weisz) ride their pod-bubble into the maw of a nebula. If you just did a double-take on that last sentence, don't worry -- it's not quite as trippy as it sounds.

The film -- and I'm sure that I'll get some argument even on this -- only exists in the present day, or 2000 A.D., rather. Tommy, a medical doctor who (I hope) has a license to operate on monkeys in order to study their brains, is using his research to try and find a cure for the disease that is ravaging the body of his wife, Izzy. Meanwhile, Izzy is trying her hand at writing a fantasy novel about a conquistador in sixteenth-century Spain who is set off by the Spanish Queen to find the elixir of life, contained in a special South American tree. This fictional story, which is played out in The Fountain as being as real as the present day segment, eventually jumps from 1500 A.D. to 2500 A.D. The story is now being written by Tommy instead of Izzy for plot reasons, so he finishes it with his own flourish. So, in essence, the story isn't fantastical at all, because all the fantasy elements are 'book sequences.' Anyone want to argue with that plot description?

It is an experience that many great filmmakers before have had to go through. Now it is Darren Aronofsky's turn. He flopped big with a pet project, last fall's The Fountain, and now he must work as a for-hire on a studio film he's not personally invested in. Fortunately Aronofsky's strengths as a filmmaker are enough that he won't be stuck with just any old project. Instead he may be able to work with actors as popular, talented and bankable as Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg, both whom are set to star in Paramount's boxing biopic The Fighter. Aronofsky is currently in talks to helm the movie, which we told you about in February.

If Aronofsky signs on, it will likely be his next film, probably even ahead of Black Swan, which was put on the fast-track back in January. But if he passes on the project, it could be because he's a big fan of Billy Elliot (you know, for choosing ballet over boxing). It is hard to imagine Aronofsky making a mainstream boxing movie focusing on themes of brotherhood and redemption -- this is how the studio has been describing the concentration of Paul Attanasio's rewrite of the script -- but this only makes me hope that he takes the job. Sometimes it is more interesting to see a stylish filmmaker take on work that is unexpected of him. There's always the possibility for disaster, but there's also a great chance that it will at least be a cool-looking disaster.

I'm all for these guild awards, with their specific categories and distinct recognitions, but I'm not sure I understand the Costume Designer Guild's honor for "Distinguished Actor." If the reasoning is that the recipient of this award is someone who looks good in costumes, or makes costume designers look good, then Helen Mirren makes sense as this year's winner. But this reason doesn't explain why the guild is also giving Sandra Bullock an award. Suddenly, the logic falls apart -- especially for anyone who has seen Miss Congeniality 2.

The costume designers don't need to give actors any more praise. And Mirren certainly doesn't need any more trophies this year. To me, the guild's recognition of the different genres of costume design is interesting and appealing enough without some unnecessary star-kissing.

The categories for the Costume Designer Guild Awards separately acknowledge achievements for modern costume, period costume and fantasy costume. The lumping of these genres together into the Best Costume Design Oscar doesn't give credit to the differences between them, and it often ignores the difficulty of modern costuming, which many people assume is as easy as the everyday act of getting dressed in the morning.

One thing I love about the guild awards is their need to break things down as specifically as is tolerable. The Oscars only satisfy if you're simply looking to award films with general categorization, but guilds and societies satisfy the more detailed classifications. For example, there is only one Oscar given for Best Visual Effects, but there are nine awards given in different motion picture categories by the Visual Effects Society.

The VES has announced their nominees for their 5th annual awards, which will be given out February 11. Some of the specific honors include Outstanding Animated Character in a Live Action Motion Picture (no, Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties is not nominated), Outstanding Animated Character in an Animated Motion Picture (read: computer animation), Outstanding Created Environment (think green screen scenes), Outstanding Models and Miniatures (good to see they still exist!) and Outstanding Compositing. There are also awards given separately to both the best effects in an effects-driven movie and the best effects in a non-effects-driven movie (called "supporting visual effects"), an award for best in-camera effect ("special effects") and an award for single best visual effect (very specific -- though only Children of Men's nomination lists a distinct sequence).

It was a good year for much of Hollywood, but a bad year for A Good Year. The Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe team-up only grossed $7 million domestically, and has been labeled a flop. Variety has listed the major box office disappointments for 2006, and interestingly enough, a few of them have to do with water. The appropriately bad way to describe their fate, then, is to say that they drowned. Flushed Away, The Lady in the Water, Poseidon and The Fountain (okay, I didn't see it, but I don't think there's an actual water-type fountain), just couldn't swim. Here's some more bad puns: Sharon Stone didn't have the Basic Instict 2 stay away from a dumb sequel; Producer Dean Devin said, "Flyboys," to his new movie but it crashed and burned; All the King's Men stayed away from this remake, and so did everyone else; Audiences let their Freedomland in other activities besides seeing a movie starring Julianne Moore and Samuel L. Jackson. There's no pun needed for The Wicker Man; it just sucked.

Unlike the biggest flops of all time, none of these movies from 2006 broke a studio or likely ended a career. Ridley Scott and Wolfgang Petersen (director of Poseidon) have had flops before, but they can be forgiven for "flukes" every once in awhile since they usually turn out successful work. Plus, their films did okay business overseas. International box office saves more flops these days than back in the times of the really big bombs. Most of the other filmmakers represented are also probable to bounce back, or at least fall back on their other talents. Joe Roth (Freedomland) has already returned to producing. Steve Zaillian (All the King's Men) is back to writing. Tony Bill (Flyboys) may continue acting. Michael Caton-Jones (Basic Instinct 2) will eventually make another crappy film. M. Night Shyamalan (Lady in the Water) might need to be forced to work on somebody else's script for once, but he isn't going to disappear anytime soon, unfortunately.

Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain has been a conundrum for me since I first saw it at the Toronto International Film Festival: How to write about a film which so clearly has its heart in the right place, which the director created with such passion, and which works so well on certain levels, when its flaws keep it from being as great a film as it could have been? I wanted to love this film on every level -- wanted to love it so much, in fact, that I saw it a second time at a Seattle screening, just to give it another chance. And perhaps it's partly a problem of expectation: If I'd gone into the film expecting not to like it, then maybe it would have blown me away.