The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

[Front-Ranger]

...I think Terry, the editors, Johnny, Colin, Jude and, yes, Heath surmounted the problem of Heath's untimely demise very well, plotwise.

There was one scene where Heath as Tony tells the Dr. to start imagining, then he goes through the mirror but he is still Heath/Tony. He says, "oh shit" or something like that, goes out again and tells the Dr. to imagine harder. How on earth did they get that scene, not knowing at the time that they were going to have other actors playing Tony inside the mirror?! Amazing.

I was chagrined to see this star-heavy movie playing on only four screens in the Denver metro area, and the smallish theater was only about half full on opening night! Plus, it's gotten a lot of press. Glad to see the post where it's doing a "respectable" business. Also, my companions all thought the movie was "strange" as in weird/strange, not fabulous/strange. I guess you can tell I thought the latter. But, I'm a Python and Gilliam fan from way back. I've even seen the documentary about Gilliam's failed attempt to shoot Man of La Mancha.

[Monika]

All of the characters were interesting and appealing to me, even the Devil!!

me too! Tom Waits did a really good job as an annoying, cunning but also funny and sometimes even symphatetic devil.
And regarding Heath, it looked to me like he was enjoying himself. I think it was this kind of more experiemental stuff he wanted to challenge himself with. I was struck how very much alive he looked, not depressed or tired. It kinda surprised me given the circumstancs.

[Front-Ranger]

me too! Tom Waits did a really good job as an annoying, cunning but also funny and sometimes even sympathetic devil.
And regarding Heath, it looked to me like he was enjoying himself. I think it was this kind of more experimental stuff he wanted to challenge himself with. I was struck how very much alive he looked, not depressed or tired. It kinda surprised me given the circumstances.

I agree, friend! There was one scene that kind of threw me, when they were giving Heath/Tony cardiopulminary resusitation because I always thought that Heath maybe could have been saved if that had been performed in a timely manner. In fact, after Heath died, I took a refresher class in CPR. So, my heart skipped a beat when I saw them doing that to him, and then that flute or pipe popped out!! I wonder how Tony got that flute and if it was a magical flute. I'll just have to read the book!

[Front-Ranger]

When I saw Heath wearing that frilly white skirt, I was soooo tempted to break into the "I'm A Lumberjack" song!

[Penthesilea]

I finally saw the Imaginarium last night. I'm happy to report that I liked the movie much more than I had thought I would . It's funny, it's indeed strange and spacey, but not too much (for me and Kerstin anyway).

*** possible spoilers***

I guess Mr. Gilliam would be disappointed, but I didn't care much for the extensive, pompous(?) visuals in the fantasy scenes. They were hunnerd per cent Monty Python - and I didn't like them very much already back then, in MP times.
But I love, love love the absurd humor of MP, and there was some of it in the movie (the singing/dancing policemen: "Come over to our side to act out your brutality" -  ).


And Heath - well, what else is there to say? I loved Heath in every scene he was in. I loved to see him so vibrant and funny. Such comedic talent. It helped to keep the sadness away for the time of the movie. I missed his voice, of course. I'll see the move again (in English) as soon as the DVD comes out. Darned dubbing.


I loved that Lily Cole's heart tattoo was so clearly visible in her scenes with Colin Farell.

[Penthesilea]

On our way between the parking garage and the cinema we came by a Mexican restaurant. So it was clear where would would be heading to after the movie. Hell yes, we been a Mexiko. You got a problem with that?

I ate cactus for the first time in my life. Was good, very fruity, and a bit like zucchini.

And for drink I had a cocktail. When looking at the cocktail menu, I saw one named Amarillo. Amarillo is not far from Childress, so that's what I decided for.

Seeing a Heath movie, eating Mexican and drinking a cocktail which made me think of Jack - the whole evening felt very, very Brokieish.

[ifyoucantfixit]

     The hubby and I went to see, THE IMAGINARIUM OF DR PARNASSUS.  We went downtown to an older kind of
Art house theatre.  We loved the fit.  It seemed like the exactly right place to see this movie.  I never have cared for
the multiplex type theaters anyway.  Most of the old ones are being changed into flea markets, or some kind of club.
     This one even is an over 21 place, that serves beer if you want them.  We vowed to go back there and see
other movies again.  The only drawback, being the parking is rather limited.  We were very lucky to find a slot.

     Now on to the movie.  I was very pleasantly surprised.  It was not so much the storyline, which all in all turned out
to be better than other movies I have seen done by Gilliam.  Considering the difficulty that the loss of Heath during the
filming caused.  It was not so bad.  I loved the girl, she looks like a character that may have been drawn by a Marvel
Comics artist.  Face of a china doll, and as Ken said, "she's got some eyes."  Legs that are longer than any supermodel, and a
nice bust.  Gorgeous.  Heath was everything he always is.  He literally lights the screen up when he is on it.  You have a
difficult time seeing anyone else, he is so luminescent.  Johnny Depp was teriffic as well.  I wish they would have just let
him do all the rest of the scenes.  Maybe he was pre booked, and only had a certain amount of time.  Colin Ferrell was
good enough too, but the character took on a decidedly meaner tone during his stint.  The only one who I really didn't
care for of the replacements was Jude Law.  It was almost like he didn't understand where he was supposed to be playing comedy, or drama.  I just didn't care for him.  Plus he did not even try to emulate the accent that the others did
in order to fit, as the same person.  Not a good job for me.   Too bad too since I had just the week before seen him
in the Sherlock Holmes movie with RDJ, and he was great in it.  Just a bad fit, or bad preparation maybe.?
    Ralph Wait was particularly good as "Old Nick,"  The Devil.  Funny and beguiling, and having a great time,  it was
a great part and he did it justice for sure.   The young man was very forgettable, I had just watched him through the entire movie, and told my husband, I could not pick him out of a police lineup if my life depended on it.  Of course the
part of Parnassus was well enough done by Christopher Plummer.  All in all I very much enjoyed it.
    It was indeed a feast for the eyes, if not for the brain.  It reminded me of a dream.  It had parts realistic, and parts
that were surreal, and cartoon like.  With the parts being brought together by the rather small group of main characters.
I must not forget the contribution by Verne Troyer.  He was a small man with a sage mind and heart.  It was very
clear that he loved the father and daughter, and would do whatever he had to do to help them in their long and difficult life.
    I am so glad that I got to see this movie.  The distribution for it being what it was, made if very hard to get to.
We went last week to see it, where it was advertised, and it had already been removed for putting in an extra space for Mel Gibsons new film, which seems so pedestrian to me.  They had done the same thing to Brothers.  I may not go
back to that theatre anymore for those, plus some other reasons..................
    So I know that movies are a matter of taste, and some will like it, and some won't.  But my vote is for seeing it.  See
it if at all possible, on a large screen.  I think that you will miss a great deal of the detail and costuming, etc. if you
rent it on a DVD, and try and see it on the small box.
    I was very glad to see that at least some of the people have agreed with me, and gave it an academy nod for the
art direction, and costuming.  I thought it was worth the look, just for that alone.
     I have to say though,  I shed some tears after we left for the knowledge, that Heath was so wonderful, and we
will never see him play again on the screen.  I think that is exactly what he felt like when he was on screen.  Like he
was playing the most fun game known to mankind.

[delalluvia]

Loved loved loved this movie.

Much more streamline in plot than Terry Gilliam's messy movies usually are, but, as usual, his movies leave plenty of unanswered questions.  A very large morality tale with many players.  I loved the magical, fantastic atmosphere, the juxtapositioning of a really archaic traveling sideshow with modernity, I loved the costuming, the absurdities, the satiric bits and the surreal Dal/Monty Python type effects.

Heath was marvelous and I believe that the 3 actors each did a very very good job of using Heath's mannerisms to imply Tony with his manic hand movements, rattled speech and eyebrow acting.  It was near seamless how the actors were integrated.  A real godsend that Heath had finished as much as he had.  Almost like it was planned that way.

I definitely recommend this movie.



SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS












I loved the idea that Heath wasn't the good guy.  I like the reversal of leading man expectation in that the jealous, would-be lover is the one with the pure-hearted love.  Tony didn't get the girl.  I'm pretty sure Heath liked that idea as well.  He always liked his characters more complicated that the hero-types.  I also liked that the man with the deal with the Devil is not some poor soul who made a mistake for some personal obsession or greater goal, but a man with a gambling problem who's made multiple deals with the Devil and would continue to do so if it weren't for his friend Percy taking care of him.  He's his own problem.  And it's always amusing to see the girl who wants to run away from the circus to become normal as opposed to the normal expectation of someone wanting to escape normal by joining the circus.

[Mikaela]

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS


I loved the idea that Heath wasn't the good guy.  I like the reversal of leading man expectation in that the jealous, would-be lover is the one with the pure-hearted love.  Tony didn't get the girl.  I'm pretty sure Heath liked that idea as well.  He always liked his characters more complicated that the hero-types.  I also liked that the man with the deal with the Devil is not some poor soul who made a mistake for some personal obsession or greater goal, but a man with a gambling problem who's made multiple deals with the Devil and would continue to do so if it weren't for his friend Percy taking care of him.  He's his own problem.  And it's always amusing to see the girl who wants to run away from the circus to become normal as opposed to the normal expectation of someone wanting to escape normal by joining the circus.

I liked this review, thank you. It helped put various things in perspective for me, that I hadn't quite been able to put my finger on. I saw the film a month's time ago, and came out from the theatre very undecided. There were many things I liked about it, it just didn't click as a completely together story or message.

To my very big irritation I have to admit Ms. Cole stole every scene and did a great job.

I thought the story was better and much more together, surprising and interesting - and varied - than the brain-draining Brothers Grimm. It had calmer, reflective moments to set off the hullaballoo. Amd overall I liked the fantastical elements in all their Monthy Pytonesque strangeness. They didn't take over the entire film, they served a purpose.

I thought Heath looked far better/healthier than I had expected him to - but I had a lump in my throat when he ran down the street in that clown's costume, the last scene he filmed.   The 3 others did a good job of mimicking his mannerisms and being Tony. I agree with the one here who said Johnny Depp actually was the weakest of the 3.

I think one thing the film lacked that made it less than great was a real punch of an ending, a conclusion that pulled all the threads together to make you see more than you'd realized during the preceding tale. It sort of fizzled out, letting us see that a rich consumer's life with high heels and smart clothes and shopping at the mall is a desirable outcome. Huhn? I didn't get that. But I did like that Tony proved to be the bad guy, what with his spectacular dreams of OTT delusions of grandeur that we got to see.

God, I'm just rambling along.   Anyway thank you all who posted a review here, it was an interesting read now in light of having actually seen the film.

[delalluvia]

The 3 others did a good job of mimicking his mannerisms and being Tony. I agree with the one here who said Johnny Depp actually was the weakest of the 3.

I think one thing the film lacked that made it less than great was a real punch of an ending, a conclusion that pulled all the threads together to make you see more than you'd realized during the preceding tale. It sort of fizzled out, letting us see that a rich consumer's life with high heels and smart clothes and shopping at the mall is a desirable outcome. Huhn? I didn't get that. But I did like that Tony proved to be the bad guy, what with his spectacular dreams of OTT delusions of grandeur that we got to see.

Thanks!  Someone else pointed out that the 3 actors

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

portrayed the other "faces" of Tony as Antoine was trying desperately to warn Valentina which really makes sense.  The Johnny Depp version was the seductive gigolo face of Tony, charming and sexy, making his women feel special all the while leading them down the primrose path, not delivering and taking their money.  The Jude Law was the ambitious, money-grubbing face of Tony, unconcerned about others, completely incapable of showing gratitude in the face of his rescue as he's so preoccupied with his get-rich quick ladders.  Then there was the Colin Farrell face.  The scariest one.  OK, I'm in the U.S. so I'm not used to the U.K.'s age of consent being 16.  It bugs me to see a man approaching 40 fucking a 16 year old girl.  Anyway, this is the 'real' face of Tony, the manipulator, superficial, slick, amoral, cruel conman, interested only in image, and how much his schemes can bring him power and money no matter the cost to others.  He who was so rightly hanged.  He, who the Tarot Card correctly was interpreted, isn't sad about being hanged.  Until the last of course.

I, too, thought the ending fizzled, but maybe that was the point?  This wasn't a sweeping epic morality tale, it was just the tale of one man who made his own problems and created an epic life and abnormal problems when a nice, peaceful normal life is not something to be disdained.

I didn't think the desirable outcome of a rich consumer life was the moral of the story.  I  have high heels, don't you?  I shop, don't you?  I don't have a husband and kids, but a lot of friends do.  What Valentina had in her bag was a present for their daughter.  Is buying a gift for one's child so materialistic?  I don't think the moral of the story is to desire a rich consumer's life, but a normal life.

On IMDb someone brought up the other interwoven thread of Gilliam's movie.  The socio-political side of the movie.  You might go and read it.  It has something to do with the British government, the institutionalizing of charity, and even allusions to Heath Ledger's character since he was first called "George" as in George Bush, then "Tony" as in Tony Blair and how Gilliam's personal opinion on politics also colored the character.