El imaginario del Doctor Parnassus

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%. (18.02.2010)

It's Gilliam's full-field fantasy that made a virtue out of a necessity (Depp, Law, Farrell), and while there’s really nothing to fault it for, it's not something absolutely worth loving. Rather, it’s "just" a marionette adorned with colorful ribbons in the hands of an aging yet solid puppeteer. 4 ½. (01.02.2010)

Oh, the old fool... again, he forgets that for all the intoxicating gloss, veils and crazy shapes, the whole show sways precariously in an ocean of thought and narrative confusion. But can you be mad at him for it? You can, although The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is levels above the botched film The Brothers Grimm. It’s him again - the whimsical, wasteful, restless child and a collage maker of the impossible... However, despite the excellent acting, his last work is one of his lesser films. However, I cannot hide the fact that this quality is still damn good compared to others. (08.01.2010)

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. (30.04.2010)

Heath Ledger was resurrected to steal this his last movie. Against all odds, Gilliam successfully managed to bring the picture to a successful conclusion. Not completely first-class, but very good all the same. His imagination works on overdrive and I can’t help thinking that Parnassus is actually personification of Gilliam himself who time and again makes a bet with the devil about whether he will be able to finish his next story. The special effects, although not completely perfect, are spectacular and depict stuff I personally like to see in movies (temple carved into stone in the shape of Buddha sitting on some elephants, jellyfish flying in space, well who could resist that?). They nicely contrast with quite realistically depicted period London full of drunks and Russian mafia ;-). Heath’s stand-ins are incorporated really well into the movie and don’t interrupt its flow in any way. Even though “flow" is not exactly the right word because here and there it falls apart in Gilliam’s hands. Who knows if he really had managed shoot all of the scenes with Ledger that he needed. Don't believe everything you read. Especially “The Mirror". (02.02.2010)