The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (Terry Gilliam, 2009)

[ianungstad]

Does anyone know if this film has found a distributor in the US yet?

[rs98762001]

From their Twitter:

News on a US release date coming soon...9:54 PM Aug 4th from twhirl

[LQ]

UK Trailer.

Even if it's as disappointing as the reviews suggest, it'll still be a dazzling, carnivalesque feast for the eyes judging by that trailer.

[glaswegian tome]

i'm a bit worried about it now, after seeing those sequences that take place in the mirror. those worlds look like something straight out of burton's charlie and the chocolate factory. :-k

tom waits looks great though!

[kaujot]

After being completely ambivalent about seeing the film, I've got to see it now, just for Waits.

[Kirkinson]

Variety says it'll be Sony Classics, which is almost as bad as not having theatrical distribution at all. But at least it'll be out there.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

How is it a bad thing? Is Sony Pictures Classics that dreadful?

[Kirkinson]

No, I'm being facetiously dour. They just tend not to have very good marketing or wide distribution. There are certainly exceptions like Crouching Tiger and Rachel Getting Married, and perhaps this will be one of them. I'm just worried, for Gilliam's sake, about the film being declared a flop without even getting a fighting chance.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

They just tend not to have very good marketing or wide distribution.

Okay, I understand now. The reasons excerpted above are cause for concern - which is what I thought you meant - because I've seen it happen to the few releases I've seen in newspapers. At least I can look forward to the DVD coming out if the film doesn't come to Kentucky.

[marychan]

They just tend not to have very good marketing or wide distribution.

Okay, I understand now. The reasons excerpted above are cause for concern - which is what I thought you meant - because I've seen it happen to the few releases I've seen in newspapers. At least I can look forward to the DVD coming out if the film doesn't come to Kentucky.

Most of Sony Pictures Classics' films have very small mainstream appeal, and it explains why most of of Sony Pictures Classics' films received limited distribution. (For example, I don't think that "Waltz with Bashir" is a film that many mainstream audience will love.)

But when Sony Pictures Classics finds the films that have mainstream appeal, they can make them to become big box office hit.

Maybe the Sony Pictures Classics hater need to read these articles(including Mr.Havens' comments in those articles' comment section).
http://www.movieline.com/2009/05/angry- ... efense.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/05/tit_for_tat.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jarpie]

Can't wait to see this, the trailer looked very promising and I've liked almost all of the Gilliam's movies, but sadly I highly doubt I get to see this on cinema, since my local cinema shows only crap like Hannah Montana. It's be odd if they wouldn't use Heath Ledger's name in marketing, and movie doesn't look too odd for more wider release.

[Antoine Doinel]

They just tend not to have very good marketing or wide distribution.

Okay, I understand now. The reasons excerpted above are cause for concern - which is what I thought you meant - because I've seen it happen to the few releases I've seen in newspapers. At least I can look forward to the DVD coming out if the film doesn't come to Kentucky.

Most of Sony Pictures Classics' films have very small mainstream appeal, and it explains why most of of Sony Pictures Classics' films received limited distribution. (For example, I don't think that "Waltz with Bashir" is a film that many mainstream audience will love.)

But when Sony Pictures Classics finds the films that have mainstream appeal, they can make them to become big box office hit.

Maybe the Sony Pictures Classics hater need to read these articles(including Mr.Havens' comments in those articles' comment section).
http://www.movieline.com/2009/05/angry- ... efense.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/05/tit_for_tat.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also wrote a piece responding to the SPC "haters" which you can read here.

[AWA]

Saw this tonight and it's a mixed bag. Certain aspects soar but other parts weigh this down. Tom Waits is by far the best part of this film - fantastic job as Mr Nick / the Devil and the film has real legs when he's on screen. And I'm not just saying that because I'm a big Waits fan either - this is a role he excels in.

Some of the CGI stuff I could've done without - especially when it went over the top with some effects. Everything worked best when it had some subtlety to it, which isn't surprising.

Having read the script before hand, I knew that the mirror thing was the perfect device to get away with being able to complete the film after Heath's death... and it works, to a degree. It especially is effective when Depp appears, less so with Jude Law and even less so with Farrell. Had Depp been the sole "other face" of Heath's character, this would've improved the movie. But having three different faces fill in was too much and by the time Farrell showed up, even in the audience groaned and mumbled... they weren't buying it. Of course, apparently Depp only had time for 3 hrs to do his filming for this, but it might've been a wise idea to wait until he had a little more time.

Some of the "jokes" were also horribly outdated and got some awkward gasps from the audience I was in - specifically introducing the dwarf at one of the stage shows as a poor black man (and some lady in the audience calling him an "It") didn't fly (as well as having the Antone character in drag introduced as one of the problems in society, which didn't go over well either).

The weakest part of the film was also Verne Troyer, who can't act outside of the campy Mike Meyers schtick. There were some serious moments required of his character and he flopped on all of them. Couldn't help but think Peter Dinklage would've been a far better choice in this role.

Also - some bizarre psychological bits towards the end go completely unaddressed such as

Spoiler

Parnassus' daughter having sex for the first time with Tony - ***while inside her father's mind***. That is some whacky, messed up Freudian material if there ever was some. Also worth adding into that equation is that she is frantic and angry outside, but once inside her father's mind with Tony, she is blissful and wonders if they could stay there forever. Also pretty messed up. Unfortunately, this goes by without further comment. Lily Cole sure is nice to look at though.

The metaphor of God vs The Devil was interesting, especially when there are signs that Terry is reluctant to believe in God but seems more inclined to believe in the Devil (which might be saying something about the true nature of humanity)... but God as a helpless, pathetic old man who has out lived his time and can no longer influence (or barely compel anyone to enter his kingdom, the mirror/sideshow as church) modern society is pretty strong and works well enough to combat some of the weaker points of the film. Might've actually been a better film had it concentrated solely on the Devil vs tired, defeated old God, with the Devil clearly more powerful in today's world but is constantly helping God to continue only to continue to amuse himself with his desire for competition.

[HarryLong]

New York City and LA open at the same time. That information between those two cities travels very quickly. A place like Washington, DC, it takes three weeks for that New York City information to connect there. Boston works one week after New York. Chicago is usually two weeks after New York. And then after Chicago you open Milwaukee a week later and then you open Minneapolis a week after Milwaukee.

Interesting. That's the way films used to be released back when I was a young'un.

[AttitudeAJM]

Finally got around to seeing this movie and I must say that I was greatly disappointed. There is a lot in the film that is mystifying and magical. However, it is weighed down by some serious issues that ruin most of the experience. My main issue is the liberal use of CG in the mirror sequences. These types of scenes tend to pull me away from the story. Especially when it appears to be real people walking and talking in a cartoonish world. I was reminded of Who Framed Roger Rabbit during scene with Jude Law. It was comical to a fault. My other issue was the undeveloped nature of every character aside from Parnassus, Mr. Nick, and Valentina. Tony seemed to have a story that was shoveled at you in large unmotivated clumps. The sympathetic character, Anton, started out well enough but fell flat with how ridiculous he was made to look at every attempt to save Valentina. In the end it just felt like a series of failed opportunities. The story was mystical enough yet executed poorly.

[manicsounds]

As Gilliam put it during his premiers, "Lower your expectations, and watch the movie like children". It worked for me. I thought it was a fun ride filled with fun characters and a cartoony environment in the mirror world that I think works well on a childrens' film level.

It's not classic as Brazil or 12 Monkeys, which I think were much more adult, and maybe that's where this film failed a bit. I think many kids would find it hard to sympathize or empathize with any of the characters, as he did well in Time Bandits or Baron Munchausen by having a child as the main characters.

I still gave Parnassus an 8 out of 10 for sheer fun and keeping me interested aurally and visually the way he does it best.

[Roger Ryan]

I don't see this as a children's film in the same way as TIME BANDITS; the subject matter is significantly more mature although the trappings seem immature. I initially felt that Ledger was slumming his performance a bit, but upon repeated viewings I'm seeing the subtler shading he provides (ultimately, it's unfair to try to judge this as a complete performance since he was unable to complete the film). None of the characters are stock and I really believe Gilliam has improved as a director of actors since his BRAZIL / MUNCHAUSEN heyday. As he should be, Parnassus is the central character in this film and Plummer does a superb job of showing us this fallen God-like figure who must learn to let go of his ego and allow humankind to make their own choices. The rest of the revolving circus is really there to support this idea.

As is often the case with Gilliam, this film gets better once you can move past the visual overload and take note of what's really going on with the characters.

[AttitudeAJM]

The visual overload isn't the issue I had, it was the CG overload that was my issue. I felt the movie looked remarkably fake and really pulled me out of a scene. I often felt like I was watching a cartoon with a real person walking around in it.

[Roger Ryan]

The visual overload isn't the issue I had, it was the CG overload that was my issue. I felt the movie looked remarkably fake and really pulled me out of a scene. I often felt like I was watching a cartoon with a real person walking around in it.

I see your point. Gilliam specifically wanted the world of the Imaginarium to look "cartoonish" and not attempt a more realistic-looking fantasy landscape (I imagine it was less time-consuming and, therefore, cheaper to do it the way it was done as well). I don't have a problem with the look of the fantasy world and like how it makes the sudden appearances of things like the floating dead cow that much more unexpected.

Personally, I find Cameron's Pandora is to be too unreal for my tastes; it's as if the characters are lost in a Yes album cover circa 1974.

[AttitudeAJM]

More than anything else, the growing problem with CG is the fact that it has spawned a certain type of laziness. CG allows filmmakers to make fantastical scenes for less money but they are sacrificing the realism that came with set construction and design. Imagine a movie like Legend. Had it been made now, it would have been entirely CG. I find that movie mystifying because of the elaborate sets, make up and costume design.

I felt that Imaginarium succeeded greatly with costume design for the stage performance scenes. I was hoping that the same effort would have been put towards the dream world.

[Brian C]

More than anything else, the growing problem with CG is the fact that it has spawned a certain type of laziness. CG allows filmmakers to make fantastical scenes for less money but they are sacrificing the realism that came with set construction and design. Imagine a movie like Legend. Had it been made now, it would have been entirely CG. I find that movie mystifying because of the elaborate sets, make up and costume design.

I felt that Imaginarium succeeded greatly with costume design for the stage performance scenes. I was hoping that the same effort would have been put towards the dream world.

I haven't seen Legend, but otherwise I know exactly what you mean and endorse what you've said here 100%. I liked Parnassus, but there was something awfully routine about the fantasy sequences, simply because CGI has conditioned us to expect stuff like this. When we know that anything is possible, it's really tough to stand out as remarkable.

The imagery in the future sequences of Twelve Monkeys, to use an even more relevant example, was far more evocative to me. It was tangible in way that Parnassus isn't, and it was consistent with the rest of the film in a way that the fantasy sequences in Parnassus weren't. Hell, if nothing else, the actors looked like they actually belonged there.