Cowboy Pete Visits “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus”

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

See this film.

More below.

See this film. See this film. See this film. Oh my God, see this film. See it. See it now. Stop reading this. Just go see it. Still reading this? What the hëll is wrong with you? Go. Go now. Don’t wait for DVD. Don’t wait for cable. See this film. See it while it’s still in a theater near you. If it’s not in a theater near you, then move. See it. See this film. Go. Go see it. Go see this film. You know some films you should not see? This would be the opposite. Go see this film. Best Gilliam since “Munchausen.” See this film. Must see it. Must see this film. See it. See it now. CGI has finally caught up with Gilliam’s imagination. See it now. Good Christ, you’re STILL HERE? GO! Go, dammit! Go see this film! Now. Must be now. Do not wait because it might be gone soon. Go now. Go see it. See this film.

PAD

PS–See this film.

50 comments on “Cowboy Pete Visits “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus””

      1. Or the cheney. Or the rumsfeld. And don’t pee on the palin, either. Just come right out and tell us how good it is already.

  2. Not showing within 60 miles of me (at least…probably no closer than a 3 hour drive), so I have to wait for the DVD. :/

  3. Dragged a friend to it on opening day before we both had to work. It reminded me of a conversation I had a few days earlier with a rather inebriated friend of mine who was telling me why he hated CGI (I was trying to defend it). After I saw “Imaginarium” I thought to myself, “Now that’s why CGI is a good thing, because there are directors out there like Gilliam, who wish to use it for brilliant art.”
    .
    But beyond that, the story is just terrific. I would’ve liked it if I was six, and if I was 60. Gilliam really has what it takes to make a movie that appeals to such a broad spectrum, but without ever being bland.

  6. Already saw it in limited release, and it is indeed very good. The sheer imagination of the special effects and plot are really impressive. To be honest, I wasn’t sure what was going on half the time…but it was still captivating.

  9. The negativity in this post overwhelms me. 🙂

    Seriously, I love the idea of different actors playing the lead role.(Especially given who the actors are) and the story seems cool. Your review tips the scales. See it I shall.

  11. Already seen it, and loved it.

    And fully agree with PAD: it must be seen on a BIG screen, so don’t wait for the DVD.

    In case it is not clear: IT MUST BE SEEN ON A BIG SCREEN. Go see it.

  12. To add a bit more, the best thing of the film (for me) is the feeling that leaves as you exit the cinema.

  14. PAD:

    To paraphrase a classic SNL skit featuring Shatner:

    “So, are you saying we should pay more attention to Gilliam’s TV output?”

  15. “Best Gilliam since “Munchausen.””

    .
    Didn’t “Munchausen” fail/get bad reviews? I don’t remember. I only partially liked it, but I read Munchausen as a child.

    The movie didn’t get here yet, but just to be clear, when it does arrive you think I should watch it?

    1. Didn’t “Munchausen” fail/get bad reviews?
      .
      It got mostly rave reviews. Fail? It was barely released. It was buried because the studio switched management. According to Gilliam, only 114 prints were put out. By contrast, an art film typically sees 400 prints distributed. It was physically impossible for the film to make money.
      .
      If “Parnassus” hasn’t gotten there yet, then chances are it’s not coming there, wherever there is. You need to find it and go to it.
      .
      PAD

      1. I’m in Israel.

        It seems that they are not even going to distribute this movie here. The distributors sometimes do this if they don’t think a movie is going to do well in the Israeli market. They are not very smart. I’ll have to either watch it on DVD, or in the Cinemateque if they later bring it, or in another preferably English speaking country. But I have no plans to travel anywhere like that anytime soon. It’s a shame.

      2. At the time, it was considered the biggest bomb in film history. Since then, several films have done even worse at the box office. And those were films that the studio didn’t try to bury. Baron Munchausen is also my favorite film of all time. Except for Harold and Maude. Nothing beats Harold and Maude.

  16. Gilliam is like most artists that I admire: you don’t hear a word about what they’re working on for years and start to question if they’re working on anything, then they come out with a mind-blowing masterpiece and you thank God that they exist! In other words, what Peter said!

  17. @Daniel “At the time, it was considered the biggest bomb in film history. ”

    Um, not sure where you got that information, but since 1980 the film that’s considered the biggest bomb in film history was “Heavens Gate”. Not sure if “Waterworld” took that title in 1995.

    I saw “Imaginarium” the night it opened because:
    A) It’s a Gilliam film. Rule #1 ALWAYS see a Gilliam film on the big screen
    B) Well, because it’s a Gilliam film, and unfortunately theaters will usually just run his films for a week (or two if you’re lucky).

    1. Hollywood accounting is famously iffy. When you Google “biggest movie flops of all time,” you get a number of different lists, and all of them contradict each other. This list from 2000 seems to prove my original point:

      http://topten-results.tripod.com/MovieFlops.html

      If you look at someone else’s list, it will have a different ranking. And as I said, many movies have come out since then and done even worse at the box office. But Baron Munchausen still lost so much money that–in combination with Brazil–it seriously damaged Terry Gilliam’s career. Even today, he has difficulty getting a film made. So, in summary: see Doctor Parnassus now.

  18. Thanks for the tip. It is playing in the area, so I’ll definitely consider it. Gotta admit, though, the ROTTEN TOMATOES reviews are pretty mixed on it. Even some of the ‘positive’ ones are divided. Great visuals, but so-so story. That sort of thing.

    1. Although I admittedly spend quite a chunk of time on RT reading their lists, they often aren’t the best place to go for reviews. RT loves “Avatar,” for one, something I managed not to get hypnotized by. Also, “Face/Off” has 97% on the Tomatometer (don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love that movie, but it’s not one I’d expect to be a critical darling). And for some reason, whoever wrote the description for “Josie and the Pussycatts” didn’t seem to understand that the excessive product placement in that movie was a joke. I like that movie, somewhat because of that intentional parody (it can also be noted that the film didn’t make money off the product placement, and I believe actually had to pay to use some of the labels), and can’t understand how someone could possibly miss that.
      .
      Also, on their “Total Recall” segment (which isn’t determined by the Tomatometer), they have a strong tendency to put movies where the actor they are recalling plays only a bit part as the #1. All in all, not the best site to use if you’re trying to decide what to watch.

    2. I came out of the film wondering what film those reviewers had seen, the ones who complained that the narrative was lacking. ‘Cause it sure wasn’t the one I’d seen.
      .
      PAD

  19. I do want people to see this film. Not because it’s any good (it’s not), but because I’m sick of Terry Gilliam being Hollywood’s ugly stepchild. Here we have Heath Ledger’s final film, which also features Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell, and yet the publicity and marketing for this film have been almost nonexistent. Little surprise, then, that it’s a box office bomb (although I suppose the fact that nobody but Peter seems to like this movie has also contributed to that). Gilliam’s films should be making $500 million and James Cameron should be wallowing in obscurity.

    1. You think the movie should be making $500 million even though you think it isn’t very good? That seems inconsistent.

      1. Not really. The more money it makes, the more money Gilliam will have for his next movie (which will hopefully be better than this one). Okay, maybe I was overstating things a bit. But I’d at least like it to make a profit. It’s only because I’m a big fan of Gilliam, even if I didn’t like this particular movie.

      2. It’s only because I’m a big fan of Gilliam, even if I didn’t like this particular movie.
        .
        Ah, okay. I see what you mean.

    2. (although I suppose the fact that nobody but Peter seems to like this movie has also contributed to that).
      .
      A “fact” contradicted by the majority of responses on this thread from people who have seen it.
      .
      PAD

  21. Saw this film last night; I was blown away. It was the first time I saw a Gilliam film on the big screen, and it was beautiful.

    Over my break I’ve seen three films in theaters (and about a dozen and a half at home). Which, interestingly enough, were not only the same ones Peter saw, but I also had the same reaction for all of them (which I had before reading the reviews).

  22. I saw it the day it opened. I love Gilliam’s films. i was tired. I may have dozed off. I was not terribly impressed. Interesting, but not engaging. I’ll attribute that, for now, to perhaps having missed some of the movie and will see it again.

    Living in Portland, I’m fortunate in probably having at least another month to see it on at least a medium if not a big screen. I actually went when I did even though I was tired because it was showing on one of my preferred larger screens.

    I love Gilliam. I’ll give it another chance.

  23. Just got back from watching it. Like Michael, I enjoyed it, but I started to nod off. I like the overall story and the visuals are stunning, but I was expecting more of an emotional payoff. Gilliam has certain signature riffs and I can see what PAD means by watching it on the big screen. There’s a sense of scale in some scenes that you would miss at home. I admit I may have missed some things. Other than Heath and some of his replacements (which were worked into the movie very smoothly) I knew nothing about the plot or the other actors. Through the whole movie I thought Tom Waits was John Malkovich.

    Though I wasn’t totally blown away by it, I appreciated the head’s up. Only one theater in my town was showing it and this was the last week. I’m also surprised it didn’t get as much hype, being Heath’s last film. I missed out on Fantastic Mr Fox on the big screen, so I didn’t want to miss this.

  24. This film is a journey. As it develops, it has some great moment (the hangman, the story-that-must-be-told…) and other weak ones (Ledger’s mask, and he was a bit accelerated the whole time), but as the movie ends, you exit the cinema with a broad smile and thinking “what a fantastic journey!”.

    So I loved the film, with all its flaws.

  25. It’s playing in maybe 3 theatres close by me on Long Island, and at those they’re only giving it one showing a day, mostly around 10-10:45 PM. This may be one of those instances where I knuckle down and go to the movies by myself because I do NOT want to miss a Gilliam film on the big screen. (I’ve seen them all on the big screen since “Time Bandits” and even caught a rare screening og “Brazil” in it’s limited release) As for reviews… I stopped paying attention to them ever since I saw a Newsday review for the remake of ‘Little Shop of Horrors’ with Steve Martin and Rick Moranis: “An alien life form posseses a houseplant and uses mass-hypnosis to control people.”

    1. Mmmmmm…Brazil. I saw this in a theater also. A couple of times. One of my all-time favorite movies. I’m hoping to take my daughter to see it in a theater sometime in the next couple of years. (I just hope it doesn’t end up in one of our theater/pubs at a time when she can’t attend. That would just be cruel.)

  26. I was worried about if I would get the chance to see it on the big screen or not. Fortunately, I have a good friend who owns a movie theater, and both I and another good friend of his were saying how much we wanted to see this film… And it will be opening at his theater soon.

    Yay friends with movie theaters!

  27. Peter is absolutely correct on this one! I left the theater wanting and NEEDING to tell everyone I know to GO SEE THIS MOVIE IN THE THEATER! Everything about it is sheer brilliance!

  28. Saw it, on your recommendation. (Not that I needed much prodding — I’m a big fan of Gilliam.) Had to drive halfway across the state to see it, because it’s not playing anywhere within fifty miles of where I live… but it was worth it. Now I want to see it again. Thanks. 🙂

  29. Pingback: Folks LOVE The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus! |

  30. Looks like it was a good idea to see it with my sister and friends last week.

    Movie was great, a bit mindscrewing at some parts but great non the less.
    Mister Nick seems to be another example of an interpretation of the character fitting a certain Rolling Stones song.

    During the end i had a bit of fear that it might end in a “Brazil kind of way” but thankfull it turned out not to be so.

  31. I had not planned to see this in the theater until I read your review PAD. My wife and I decided to go on your recommendation. Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. So incredibly great.

  32. This movie will rank as one of the great films of all time. See it while you have a chance.
    Don’t hurt yourself trying to disentangle the story leave that for the forth of fifth screening. First time just delight in the sheer dámņ brilliance of this man. He has five intricate character stories moving accross three states of reality. It’s a rare Hollywood movie that can create one interesting story at a time.

Comments are closed.