Comments on: TIFF 09 Review: The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

By: Andrew James

Andrew James — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:10:41 +0000

From a recent email:

“It’s hard to say what the problem is with it exactly because it’s just one big problem whose tinier pieces work on their own. But it’s a loose globule of nice ideas that go nowhere but ooze around to see what cracks and corners it will fit in and then it just feels bloated and disjointed. Ultimately succumbing to Gilliam just saying, ‘that’s good enough! print and copy!’”

By: Kurt

Kurt — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:16:45 +0000

@Goon, because that one sentence is not operating in a vacuum. Gilliam seems to have something else operating in the mix, his reflection and digging into the nature of why we need fantasy and stories and whatnot (see also TimeBandits, Munchausen, Brazil, etc. but also Guellermo Del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth and Hellboy II) makes the free-form sloppy storytelling a strength rather than a weakness.

By: Jandy Stone

Jandy Stone — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:43:18 +0000

I actually thought that for Gilliam, it was pretty straight-forward and sensical. I did think the end started to get a little out of hand, but overall I quite enjoyed it. In terms of sheer imagination and inventiveness, I’m not sure Gilliam has too many rivals.

By: Goon

Goon — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:18:13 +0000

“Holding that as a fault of Gilliam is like holding ’slow and quiet’ against Malick. It is simply a part of how he tells stories.”

At the same time you could excuse a laundry list of bad films by this logic.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:15:01 +0000

Should be an interesting contrast with Daybreakers, which is only interested in getting to the next chapter and slicks things to the point of where you simply ask, “what is the point?”

Ah well, Willem Dafoe is a hoot though.

By: Andrew James

Andrew James — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:25:58 +0000

No, there is a difference between being vague and slightly nonsensical and just being jerky and clunky. We’re here, and then we’re here. Then we’re here and then we’re back to here again – without much explanation as to why or why I should care. More on tomorrow Cinecast.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 01:50:32 +0000

@Andrew, “stumbling narrative that makes for pretty nonsensical story telling”

Holding that as a fault of Gilliam is like holding ’slow and quiet’ against Malick. It is simply a part of how he tells stories.

By: Andrew James

Andrew James — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:57:54 +0000

It has its moments and I guess I enjoyed some of what was there, but it’s a really stumbling narrative that makes for pretty nonsensical story telling. Agree Kurt that the use of different actors was seamless and made it look like that was the intent from square one.

But generally I didn’t really get into any of the characters, didn’t feel like I understood them and ultimately didn’t care (Lily Cole is flat as can be for a main character).

The CGI is unlike Gilliam’s previous works and while there’s some great imagination at work, it doesn’t realy add much to the story. It just kind of is.

By: Marina Antunes

Marina Antunes — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:53:03 +0000

Peter – you and I are on the same page here when it comes to both Imaginarium & Tideland. Though I really enjoyed Imaginuarium, I wasn’t taken away by it. Love the set design and the feeling of the fantastical but overall, the story did very little for me and though it features some good performances (Waits is excellent though I was more excited to see Peter Stormare make an appearance) I found some of the others lacking energy – I love Andrew Garfield but his performance here is a shadow of his previous roles. Overall I enjoyed it but didn’t love it.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:56:24 +0000

Glad you liked it Kurt. I was a bit disappointed myself, but I lay the blame on my expectations. The CG kind of took me out of it for the most part, as I was (foolishly) hoping for practical effects on the scale and scope of Maunchausen. I was never truly blown away by the mirror world – at least as much as the characters were.

I really can’t wait to see it again though.

I should add that I love Tideland, so Gilliam was already in top form as far as I was concerned.

By: Review: Dr. Parnassus Has 3 Great Surprises - Row 3's Pre-TIFF Review |

Review: Dr. Parnassus Has 3 Great Surprises - Row 3's Pre-TIFF Review | — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:50:12 +0000

[...] Source: Row 3 [...]

By: Jonas

Jonas — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:47:39 +0000

This is such great news. I was a bit worried about Gilliam for a second there. Glad to hear he has learnt to masetr CGI too now.. that was the worst part of the Brothers Grimm I think.