The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Five stars, that’s all there is to it. It's rare to see something like this in my commentary, but: A person who was bored by The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, disappointed by it, or bored and disappointed together, simply has no imagination, can't think about the film and doesn't want to dream. There. Imaginarium is great - every second, every shot, it oozes typical Gilliam, whose magical world I could recognize even blindly. It's commonplace that this American Python doesn't miss the mark even when choosing actors - here he hit the mark again. Several times. Ledger, Depp, Law and Farrell were all great. A charming Lily Cole, and Christopher Plummer, who has no problem looking homeless in one shot and like a dignified magician in the next... And last but not least, Tom Waits, one of the best devils of the film world. I applaud you all. And I wish Terry Gilliam would never stop telling stories (we know how important that is for the world, don't we?).__P.S. The released DVD offers (by today's lousy standards) an unprecedented portion of interesting bonus features. But the radio interview with Heath Ledger ("I'm going to finish shooting the new Terry Gilliam movie in three weeks") made me feel pretty damn anxious. (08/07/2010)

I have one unpleasant memory from the film "Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus", which is why I didn't see Johnny Depp in the movie. Yes, I mainly went to see the film because of Heath, who did not disappoint. I like how Gilliam dealt with the unfortunate situation. All the actors did incredibly well, and visually the film is unbelievably interesting, but that was to be expected from Gilliam. The screenplay does lag a little, but you go into it knowing that it will be more of an artistic experience rather than a popcorn flick. (01/06/2014)

Honestly, I didn't expect to give only three stars to Terry Gilliam, as I should be more forgiving due to my knowledge of all his weaknesses. But with his latest work, it's like this: it contains a number of five-star scenes, brilliant special effects, and top-notch acting performances, but it's terribly unbalanced and as a whole, the film is not that great. I realized that a whole series of inconspicuous low-budget TV films ended up resonating with me much more. Those who know the history of the Monty Python group know that the other members of the group always had problems with two colleagues, namely Chapman for his alcoholism and chronic unreliability, and Gilliam for his impracticality and megalomania. As John Cleese recalls, it was necessary to watch every step he took, as otherwise, he would dream and create and constantly exceed the budget. His work has always been bursting with ideas in which the whole loses itself. And that's exactly the trouble with Imaginarium. It is overwhelmed with a lot of decorative elements, visual ideas, and self-indulgent playthings, due to which the idea and the story tend to disappear. The cast is fabulous, and it's a joy to watch all the members of the ensemble. That's true except for the traditional problem of Gilliam's entire directing career - always carefully choosing male performers, while hardly ever (except for 12 Monkeys) reaching for first-league actresses. It's quite typical for him to choose various hot models - for example, he cast a completely unknown model Kim Greist in his key film Brazil, only to be strongly disgusted by her performance and cut out several of her scenes. The old man didn't learn his lesson, so this time he cast model Lily Cole in the main role, undoubtedly the owner of a beautiful body and a lovely face, but I'm afraid she's just an average actress. It's not a disaster, as in contemporary blockbusters things are often worse, but I can imagine dozens of better professional actresses for this role. Moreover, this girl didn't match the role from a typological point of view. Her glamorous image would suit the character of a call girl more. The film will likely have a decent impact and commercial success, especially considering Heath Ledger's death, but I can't shake off the feeling that Gilliam owes a lot to his reputation and Imaginarium can only look up to the essential films in Gilliam's filmography from a distance. I can't resist commenting on the character of the devil, who definitely does not resemble the classic depiction of the devil as an instrument of evil described by the Christian Church. Gilliam's devil is rather a player who sacrifices practically everything for the principle of the game and enjoys it greatly in our world. A very likable, albeit morbid character. Overall impression: 65%. (02/18/2010)

There is nothing against heating in the wide-ranging imagination, but the story must not be forgotten. Terry Gilliam stubbornly creates "in his own way" to the point where his regularly repeated formula for the end begins to slowly but surely irritate me against the majority of usual rules. The inventive first hour and the likable main characters against the backdrop of the right mystical plot are wasted when it starts to get entangled, change sides, and overturn archetypes. I can understand why such surprises are successful with the audience, but a great cinematic experience did not occur on my side, despite multiple acting performances by Ledger and his alter-ego or the beauty of Lily Cole. (04/30/2010)

What does it matter that the visuals are so charming and interesting when, story-wise, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is an utterly weak spectacle that, after a promising first half hour, gradually lost my sympathy until it stopped at the freezing point? At least the stars are visibly enjoying their participation, although I would be a thousand times happier if none of them had to help Terry Gilliam and Heath Ledger was still among us. More or less only for him, for Johnny Depp and for Jude Law I give the two stars (I don't mention Farrell, because I couldn't watch that long)... (09/22/2012)