[b.miller]

I've seen it twice and really really like it. I do think it's one of those movies that takes time to let you know what it is. It's also quite different from what most Hollywood movies are nowadays in that Aronofksy never really answers some of the big questions of the film. It's much more European in mindset to me... actually closer to Solaris (but I liked this much more than Solaris).

The questions of what is reality and what is connected are deliberately left open to interpretation I think. Just within my circle of friends we had several different outlooks, but we all agreed that at its heart it was about love and death and mourning.

in his Q&A, Aronofsky quoted one of his friends, who after reading the second version of the script (for those that don't know, this movie was originally going to be a huge budget starring Brad Pitt with a full-scale pyramid and lots more mayan stuff) said "you've turned the movie into a poem" which I think describes the picture quite well. It's really more of a meditation or exploration on the theme and emotions than any sort of narrative story.

so whether the mayan story was real or just the book she wrote to cope with her illness and whether the future story was real or just the ending to the book that he wrote to cope with her loss and whether the Hugh Jackmans in the different times were connected at all, it's all whatever you think it should be. I don't think there's a correct answer to this question, and for me that's what makes this movie great, makes it say way more than most of the other stuff out there today.