THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS Post Release

I have been on such a rollercoaster of emotions with this film, and I haven't even seen it yet. I was giddy with anticipation when it was first announced, and then I tempered those expectations after the first mediocre reviews started to trickle in. Then the trailer debuted, and it looked GREAT, and I got excited all over again. Now this review has deflated the balloon a bit, and I'm back to being simply cautiously optimistic. I'm going to check this out, as Gilliam is still one of my all time favorite directors, but it's a shame that it seems like he hasn't managed to recapture that brilliance that once seemed so effortless for him.

Well, that's too bad, but it probably could have been worse, and I bet fans get something out of this.

You know, Olson more or less said what I wanted to say perfectly. All of my positive vibes about this film have mellowed out somewhat; I still want to see it but I'm not letting myself go in with high hopes (the exact kind that are ripe for being dashed!).

Good review, Devin.

Just an FYI, in recent interveiws Gilliam has claimed that the speech that Depp delivers was already in the script before Ledger's death, and that the movie was rewritten at all after Ledger died. Don't know if it's true, but that's what he claims.

Well I can't speak to that, but Gilliam insists that at least the speech about Young Artists burning out was in the script to begin with and they had long discussions about whether or not they should remove it or rewrite it before deciding to keep it in. Again, this is only what I've read in recent interviews, so I can't claim any actual knowledge of this.

As a big Gilliam fan awaiting his return to form, I'm disappointed in this reaction but at the same time hopeful since it has at least been getting SOME good reviews, which is more than I can say for Tideland or Brothers Grimm.

Even if it was across-the-board considered unmitigated shit I cannot avoid a Tom Waits movie. I. Just. Cannot.

I've read Devin's reviews since they began appearing on CHUD, and while I believe he's been 'right' almost all the time, his take on Tideland was an unfortunate blunder in his essaying, nearly suggesting Terry Gilliam is a pervert or dangerous to children or something. So I must take his opinion on Imaginarium with trepidation. Sure, The Brothers Bloom was rubbish, but with time it's become just a light, forgettable fantasy romp. I am sure Gilliam is still a genius.

EDIT: HAH! The Brothers Bloom. Ah, both movies weren't as good as anyone would've thought they'd be.

I'm of the view that Devin and the general Chud populous got it wrong with Tideland. It wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination (it's far too long, and drags badly) and I can't say I really *enjoyed* it as such, but its a completely singular movie with some unique, unforgettably fucked up and occasionally beautiful scenes, and the effect of it as a whole has stuck with me.

There has already been some hate on the site for this film, people seem ready to praise Death Ledger but quick to dismiss Terry Gilliam - this was bourne out as the auditorium filled to capacity very quickly (mostly with trendy girls and gays who screamed and cheered as ledger's name appears on the credits). As a loyal Gilliam afficionado and apologist (fuck you, I liked tideland) I will always turn out to see what he has come up with.

However, that said - I really enjoyed this film, the conceit (as usual for mr Gilliam) is a bit confused but very original however we are not patronized with much-needed information. Plummer is wonderful as the ancient Dr. Parnassus, if a little inconsistent, in some scenes he bumbles and mutters like an old man and in others he has a steel gaze and thespian clarity, however we can charitably chalk that up to his drinking. The rest of the cast is wonderful, troyer as his passepartout is excellent, Lily Cole, a little dry at first and most assuredly funny-looking, reminding me of an old playstation advert by chris cuningham. However she brings alot of warmth and depth to the character, passing for a 16 year old virgin crushing on flashy "Tony" and ignoring long-time friend, nice guy and confidante andrew garfield (an excellent turn here - i will be hunting out his other performances after this). Special mention for Tom Waits who is underused but really is magnetic in his role, even if it doesn't really go anywhere or reveal his motives - his scenes with plummer are a joy.

The story grinds along whimsically, tinged with that grimy texture that is a trademark of his autership, without very muchin the way of explanation - the big surprise here is the use of CGI - strange for an ex-animator - Gilliam has always shyed away from using very much CGI, preferring to punish his actors with real world verisimilitude, the animation employed for the fantasy sequences is bright and brash, but more than a lttle hollow as he takes baby steps into this new minefield - a few pythonisms creep in and more than once it hints at the heights a fully developed CGI Gilliam movie might achieve. Much will be made of Tony's transformations "through the looking glass" and it seemed to me that these sequences were elongated to make the most of the A-list talent suddenly landing in Gilliam's lap, each gets a decent run out but only Law really nails it in my opinion. I can see why some reviewers found the last 20-30 minutes unravelling the film but i thought it worked quite well - the only real issue i had was that much of the exposition seemed to have hit the floor of the editing room (as if we had missed the first 30 minutes) to give more room to Tony's journey of self, which also had a rather uncertain result. I think a director's cut of this would really work much better. Hopefully TG can turn around this percieved slump and knock a couple of his next movies into the stratosphere as it seems unfair to keep such a brilliant filmmaker shackled to such tiny budgets for such bold visions. There seems to be (as usual) a real mish-mash of ideas, messages and metaphors - i rather liked the old hollywood v new hollywood allegory made by devin on this site but really it could be interpreted in any way you like.

for my full take on this and the other films i've seen at the Vancouver international film festival see the metro Vancouver regional thread.

Dev's review is a fair assessment.

There are moments of sheer brilliance, unfortunately some of Gilliams ideas also fall flat and scenes stall to a slow pace bordering inertia.

The real world scenes are shot through Gillaims customary style and look great, no one frames a shot like Gilliam (Pecorini's photography is lush) yet this is sadly lost during the Imaginarium segments which is a real shame.
My biggest worry before going in was the CGI but it didn't prove to be a problem, they're not great at times but they work within the story which is an accomplishment considering the budget and the world making involved.

Ledger is ok, to label it anything more would be to look at his performance through rosy-tinted glasses. The other Tony's all do fine work and I felt the reasoning behind the transformations worked. Depp is charming if reliant on his usual tics, Law is more removed from Ledgers performance than the other two but he hits the emotional beats and hints at whats to come, Farrell inhabits Ledgers mannerisms to a t and behaves like a coiled spring let loose.

Weren't so taken with Garfield as others were, i don't think it's anything new from him, he always looks and sounds pissed to me? That costume he wore when Ledger wakes up after his rescue was fantastic as was Verne Troyer's tongue bum outfit at the start. I felt that shot of Lily Cole, post coital in the gondola, lingered appropriately. She was good.

I am a Gilliam fan and was slightly disappointed. I've got a terrible feeling that repeat viewings won't do it any favours.

Loved this. Fantastic movie. Shame more people are not seeing this. Gilliam's hatred Tony is something else; Colin Farrel seems to be directly playing Tony Blair-he gets the most screen time out of all the non-Ledgers and I thought he really nailed it.
The Imaginarium sequences were glorious- some of it, particularly the singing policeman felt like Old School Gilliam animation which renders it something of a shame he has kept his distance from CG up until now.
The movie can be something of a mess, but that's Gilliam and you even go with it or you don't. Frankly I have always loved that about his work; it's so wild and chaotic and full of life, passion and ideas that it sometimes doesn't quite focus and achieve cohesion like work we are used to, but I love that. You never really sure where you are going to end up.
Didn't feel confused by the Imaganarium's internal logic at all, I know some people have been a bit WTF about it and Devin's review mentioned it but considering how muddled it could have been, it played pretty straight forward to me.
As an aisde, Gilliam is obviously as hatey towards drunken street filth as I have become. Nice to see!

It has to be said, Lily Cole is breathtaking. The shot of her reclining in the boat with her bra on is the best thing I've seen since Uma Thurman rising out of an oyster shell. Greatness.

The score didn't make any impact on me when i saw it, there were a couple of scenes where i took notice but overall it didn't seem that prominent in the film? Not a bad thing but then listening to these four tracks, Jeff and Mychael DAnna did a lovely job especially on Suicide Attempt.

http://www.imaginariumofdrparnassus.com/soundtrack

Another masterpiece from Terry Gilliam!

It's messy, it lacks structure, it doesn't explain things much at all.

But these are not marks against the film; most films that fuck up these elements simply fail in trying, but Gilliam shrugs them off. If there was backstory to explain the magic, for instance, this would be like a fucking Harry Potter movie; Gilliam knows that it's not provocative to bother about HOW this stuff could exist, what he wants to do is conjure up this fantastic imagery for you to interpret. When you look at a Dali painting, do you spend your time wondering how clocks don't melt?

Everything in this worked; and the Imaginarium sequences! Rarely have I seen CGI that looked so SPONTANEOUS and alive, like it really just came off somebody's sketchbook.

How can anyone not be swept up in the wonder of this movie, though? All I've heard is the plot is all over the place and the narrative is barely present...no. No. This is an art film and Gilliam succeeds because the film structure is mere window dressing to great images, performances, etc. It just doesn't bother with the HOW. You don't criticize L'Aventurra for being plotless. And this is very much a personal film as well, the basic themes of which are quite clear. There are no definite rules to judge how good a movie is, critics just need a good bullshit detector to know when the filmmaker is just fucking with them with nonsense (like The Cell) or not, when they make a movie like this.

The best movie of the year.

What is it, the hyperbole and Harry Potter crack?

Yeah, but I thought it was so overly 'cartoon~y' and consistent (yes, yes...consistently low-rent) that I still loved the designs. I mean, perhaps it was easy to forgive because of the plot device with the mirror (the first imagery we see inside is of a cardboard cut out forest) but I think it worked, although I must mention I also like low-rent animation if it has some gusto, like Fritz the Cat. Nothing tried to look realistic.

EDIT: Hm, maybe I should just say this movie is best first approached like a Monty Python episode. And one sequence is basically a Python homage.

Is the movie pro-life?? "It's not a choice, it's a child!"

I spent most of the movie entranced by Lily Cole. Whenever she wasn't on screen I was just waiting until she was. And the afore-mentioned gondola scene was indeed greatness. Plumber was really enjoyable, too. A master at his craft.

Garfield is good in the British film Boy A - if you're interested in seeing some of his other work.

Also interesting to see the crowd seemed like they came because of Ledger and had no idea what they were in for.

Devin's 6 out of 10 rating is what I would give it. I thought it was incredibly uneven, which you can expect from Gilliam. Some scenes I was entranced, others bored. My favorite scene was probably Depp's.

This is at least the most ramshackle CGI-heavy production yet to be made. I think this is the future. And as people are less entranced by 'realistic' special effects, we'll see more independent movies with these crazy bloody effects, as they become as easy to program as it is to animate a hand-drawn movie.

How's Plummer in the film?

Ugh. What a turd. As a life-long Gilliam fan this film really made me sad. BROTHERS GRIMM, TIDELAND and this film lead me to believe Gilliam has potentially lost his magic. I'd probably give it an even lower score than Devin did.

It's become apparent that Gilliam has outgrown much of his core audience, who watch Parnassus expecting something like Lemony Snicket meets Lord of the Rings fantasy; and sure enough, the film was marketed like a Harry Potter movie or whatever other modern fantasy that has become a hit, but is essentially pulp before artistry (like the average Martin Scorsese film).

I am seriously concerned that one of the great artists working today (and indeed one of the few working in film) won't be able to commit his vision to celluloid anymore, because his films are perceived in the wrong sense and aren't reaching their crowd. The only way you can do new things with film is to break with narrative convention, and even characterization. Shakespeare practiced this on the regular. But perhaps I can best compare this film to a Jodorowsky work, like The Holy Mountain.

I appreciated the movie in a sense that it was like thumbing through Gilliam's sketch book. At its worst, it was like a garage sale for all his unused ideas. It's an afternoon curiosty for the hardcore fans, but it just doesn't have the thematic power of Brazil or the focused whimsy of Munchausen.

I ended up really enjoying this. It felt like "classic Gilliam" to me, and while there were some things that just didn't seem to work, there was plenty to take in, think about and enjoy.

The last act is a bit tough to take in, and at a certain point I found myself asking "Just what exactly am I watching here?" But that seems to happen at a certain point for every Gilliam movie and you either go along for the ride and enjoy it or resist. Here, I didn't resist. I let it unfold and just accepted it for what it was; a charming fable on the power (both productive and destructive) of imagination.

It's basically Gilliam's version of Knightriders. Weird, unique, sometimes frustrating, probably too long but ultimately fascinating as long as you find the film maker to be the same.

Just saw this at the local dollar theatre, and trying to figure out why all the pans?

Its the best thing Gilliam has done in quite while, and the fact he can still make movies like this is very heart warming. I also hope it lands Cole more film roles.

I am also perfectly happy with logic of the the face changing as hinted at it brief moments, and although I think the ending is a bit too abrupt in revealing the big reveal I think it works perfectly with Devins metaphor, curious if there are big trims or not though.

Great review, Devin. I was pretty fucking jazzed when I first saw the trailer for this several months back. Now that my expectations have been lowered to a realistic level, I trust I can appreciate this merely for what Terry was able to achieve under the circumstances. In spite of all my dashed hopes, I'm still just as eager to see Waits' portrayal of Satan as I was before.

Yeah so, I thoroughly loved this and find myself pretty much agreeing with dreary louse, hyperbole included, in this thread.

Saw this on Saturday at the dollar movies and really enjoyed it more than I was expecting. Some of it had me scratching my head, but then I remembered it's Gilliam. Ledger was great, and Depp, Law, and Farrell really made it seem like a smooth transition between the real world and the Imaginarium.

I find it pretty fitting that this came out on blu-ray a week after "The Lovely Bones." Both films share a lot of the same problems. They have interesting concepts and some amazing scenery, but both of them are completely uneven and grow boring about two-thirds of the way into the movie.

While the "real world" scenes were mostly gorgeous, the look of the CGI in the Imaginarium scenes was horrendous. The scene that made me cringe the most when Colin Farrell was running around at the end and was surrounded by the shattered glass. I don't understand how the CGI in a scene that simple could look so amazingly fake.

As for Heath Ledger, his performance was serviceable but forgettable. Andrew Garfield and Colin Farrell both outshined Ledger. I don't know if it was the pharmacy of medication that Ledger was ingesting daily, but it looked like he had aged about 20 years since filming Brokeback. The only scene in which it seemed like he gave a shit was during the madeover Imaginarium scene in the fancy mall.

In retrospect, I'm glad I watched "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus," but it's not a film that I'll remember that much about within a few weeks. Well....except for the two scenes in which Lily Cole's chesticles are predominately featured.

I love Gilliam's earlier work, and Brazil's my favourite movie. But I thought this was a mess. He's too inventive for there not to be some sparkling, imaginative moments, but frankly the imaginarium parts looked as cheap as they almost certainly were. Although he'd probably hate the idea, I'd love to see someone give him a solid script and a decent budget, and let him get on with it.

People who watch experimental movies, raise your hands. Keep your hands up if you enjoyed "Imaginarium."

It isn't a narrative film. The movie's 'errors' are necessary - film is a limited medium, as any artistic medium is, and Gilliam has exposed some inherent weaknesses in cinema - namely its tendency to encourage a literal interpretation, as a sequence of events that are related to each other by plot and character development and suspense. But this severely restricts what an artist can do, and occasionally a film like "Imaginarium" is released, a film that challenges a viewer's notions of what makes a film "good". A great example is Antonioni's L'Avventura, in which almost nothing happens - but at the service of a social critique.

I dunno, I can't help but think this film isn't of its time. People want conventional films, and this slavery to genre has restricted critical interpretation. I'm not against genre - certainly I agree with Cahiers du Cinema's reinterpretation of Hitchcock films and the like as works that say much about their author, and a great genre flick can be very personal in a subtle way - but it's so rare that we get anything else now. I think some may misread this movie because of its marketing materials - certainly it kind of looks like a modern fantasy adventure (in passing) that's not out of step with Harry Potter and the like - and it might seem like it's going for that. But there's actually no obvious point of reference for this movie, except Gilliam's own movies (and really, he has always been pretty slack about plot development and "Brazil" itself is kind of meandering).

I like experimental movies. "Imaginarium" is not an experiemental movie. It's just very poorly developed in some areas.

And how is it not a narrative film? Dr. Parnasssus has a conflict with the devil, the devil attempts to mess with Dr. Parnassus, and everything is neatly resolved at the end of the movie. The narrative of the film is very straight forward. Gilliam just seems to like to go off on tangents that do not always bode well for his films.

There's a 'framing device' at best. But "Imaginarium" is more like a series of 'tangents', if you consider it has a framing device at all (and this 'framing device' is really discerned as such only because the film begins without Imaginarium scenes). "The Rules of the Game" was considered pretty random as well, as it featured no main characters, and the camera seemed to wander around from one setpiece to another, and it lacked a very obvious theme or point of view. "Imaginarium" is art like a painting is. A Picasso may, at first, seem to some as poorly drawn and pointlessly weird - as his paintings did for me, and I suspect most people - but the work is transforming, and as Picasso didn't render human beings in a realistic sense, in his famous images, Terry Gilliam is further abandoning his attachments to the accepted form of expression.

I don't know if it's better than "Tideland", but these movies will outlast your lifetime.

"Weekend at Bernies II" will also outlast my lifetime. That fact doesn't make it a good movie.

Hah! You know what I was saying. I think "Imaginarium" will be re-evaluated in the future, as a significantly great work. But currently, 'the establishment' is too up its arse to see what a wonderful movie this is. Most critiques of this movie read like an Old Man's review (not that all old men are prone to this stuffiness, but you know the stereotype I'm referring to). Everybody I know who's under 30 has absolutely loved this movie. Reviewers like Devin Faraci complain that it's a wild, freewheeling movie.

Would you care to list which specific areas, and how do you think it should have developed them to be a success?

Sure. In my opinion:

1. The characters were poorly developed. There was a lot of potential to get people invested in Parnassus, his daughter, and Tony. But they all ended up being very cookie cutter characters. The best thing that happened to this movie was the passing of Ledger. This allowed Depp, Law, and Farrell to add a little more depth to Tony's character.

Otherwise, for a Gilliam film, the characters were much too one-dimensional for my tastes.

2. The Imaginarium scenes. Yes, the budget was tight. But the CGI and the designs of the Imaginarium scenes were pathetic. "Tron" had better special effects and designs. Gilliam would have been better off animating the Imaginarium scenes by hand, rather than what happened in the end result.

I can forgive the shoddy CGI due to a lack of funding, but the design of the scenes lacked creativity and were just kind of boring. A movie that is somewhat similar, but greatly surpasses the creativity on display in Parnassus is "The Fall." The fantasy scenes in "The Fall" feel like art, as opposed to the Windows flying toaster screensaver from 1992.

3. Verne Troyer. Having little people in a fantasy film does not always work to its favor. Mini-Me put in a better performance on "The Surreal Life."

With all that said, I'm not calling the film a complete failure. I just don't think Gilliam was at the top of his game. There were some items I liked quite a bit. But the things I didn't like largely outweighed the positive aspects of the film. In response to your question about how I would I develop the areas noted above to be a success, I wouldn't make this movie without the money for better visual effects, and I would put in more work on the screenplay to create characters you can become emotionally invested in.

As much as people like bash Tim Burton for his devotion to quirky visual flare on these boards, "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" is a close cousin to Burton's later work.

The CGI didn't attempt to be 'realistic'. It was consistently fake-looking. Besides, how do you realistically put the face of Tom Waits on a giant snake? I thought the effects artists accepted this, and directed the CGI scenes like drawn animation (ie. there was no assumption these scenes could ever be 'believable' in a realist sense).

So wrong. Again, Gilliam's film is considered alongside regular, mainstream fantasy movies - and this interpretation is misleading. "Imaginarium" is an 'art film', like a David Lynch movie, or a Bunuel movie, or so on.

How can Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" be considered an equal with "Imaginarium"? The former is a half-baked literary adaptation. The latter is a personal, unpredictable movie, as one of very few movies released in 2009 that consistently surprised. Nobody knew where the movie was going, as Gilliam dispensed with the rigors and constraints of plot.

And the movie does require emotional investment. Think of near the end, when Parnassus is begging on the street. That was an intense fucking moment.

Like the response to "Tideland", I am so disappointed that others don't share the excitement in watching these weird, unpredictable movies.

Also: This movie contains Troyer's best performance. It's not made significant that he's a midget. I think you had a problem with that.

EDIT: I mean, a midget is a traveling show, yes, one would think that would be a big deal, a la "Freaks". But I don't see how Troyer was bad in the part, unless once expected his, uh, stature, would become a big deal. This issue would be cleared up on a second viewing - no one is 'regular' in this movie. The acting by every actor is very theatrical. Just look at all those grand gestures that Ledger made throughout.

It's not that it looked fake, it looked cheap.

It is a regular movie. Are you seriously indicating "Imaginarium" is on par with "Blue Velvet" or "Mulholland Drive"? How does it compare to "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie"? Next you're going to be comparing it to "Citizen Kane." It's fine that you really love this movie, but I think you are really trying to make it into something it is not.

I wasn't so much comparing it to "Alice in Wonderland." What I was trying to get across was that Gilliam didn't seem as concerned about the story as getting his kicks off on having some quirky visual images in his movie - much like people spout off about Tim Burton on these message boards.

And you really thought it was unpredictable? You didn't know that Parnassus' daughter would be involved in the Colin Farrell fantasy segment as soon as you saw Farrell's picture in the catalog? And you didn't know that Tony would be the final test for the bet?

To each their own. I didn't care about much before the scene mentioned, so it didn't have any affect on me.

If you have some other weird, unpredictable movies to recommend, I'll check those out if you want to give me a heads up. I just was greatly underwhelmed by this specific movie.

Compared to what other performances of his? Austin Powers 2, or Austin Powers 3? Or "The Love Guru"? I'm fine with little people (including midgets) working in films. Verne Troyer is not a good actor. He was a distraction in most of his scenes. The only reason he worked so well in the Austin Powers movies was because he didn't have any lines.

Warwick Davis, Peter Dinklage, or any other little person actor would have been fine in the role (I can't think of any other little people actors off the top of my head).

Well...I think it's on par, quality-wise, with "Mulholland Dr.", but I wouldn't compare the movies any further than that. I suppose "The Holy Mountain" a is decent example of a weird, unpredictable movie that's kind of bad in a lot of ways, but somehow works.

I am very lenient when considering animation quality - I love a few 70s animated films, as an example. They look 'terrible' today but it doesn't bother me. I can see how the animation would be hard to get over, but I think it'll age well in time, since it doesn't attempt to be 'realistic' - everything seen in the Imaginarium is extremely whack, and to these scenes I came with the mindset they were like pages from a sketchbook. I also don't know how believable some of the imagery could be, if the movie had more of a budget, and Gilliam tried to make everything look more expensive - the special effects would date very quickly. In this case, they are dated instantly. But since when is there a problem with this? We enjoy the original "The Time Machine" today, right? Maybe "Imaginarium's" effects will age to be as endearingly cheap and ramshackle. Movies don't advance like the technology used to make them does.

Finally caught this. I had a bit of trepidation after reading reviews, given how awful Gilliam's output has been the last ten years, but I wound up being pleasantly surprised. Of course, having zero expectations may have been the key to enjoying myself.

I agree with you guys that this was not intended as an experimental film. Narratively it's a mess, particularly Heath's character and particularly the third act. I sort of forgive it because I thought the first act was really good, and had fun with the rest. Also unlike Devin and many here, I didn't really have a problem with the CGI. Some of it was godawful, but most of it was more than passable. It was done in such a cartoonish way that, for whatever reason, it worked for me. And whatever you think about the movie as a whole Tom Waits rocked.

I thought Tideland was an absolute piece of shit. Shockingly, painfully bad. But this, if nothing else, made me believe that Gilliam has something left in the tank. It didn't quite come together here, but maybe in Quixote.

Really, I'm a bit surprised at how much hate this flick has garnered.

Saw this last night, and thought it was basically fine. Flawed, obviously, but I wasn't bored for a second and any movie that presents so many terrific performances and so much freewheeling visual originality simply cannot be a bad experience in my book. The negative buzz turned out to be almost entirely off the mark in this case.

That said I do agree that the storytelling is far from watertight and the climax in general doesn't work anywhere near as well as the rest of the film. That's partly due to the Ledger issue - the multi-casting of Tony adds to the curiosity value and visual intrigue, but having key character sequences handled entirely by Law and Farrell makes it hard for his arc to resonate like it might've done had Ledger played the whole thing. And there did seem to be a general loss of grip on the narrative as it reached its end.

But I've never seen Gilliam as being about making 'perfect' movies and I guess I just don't see any of the problems in this one as dealbreakers. Ledger's death harmed the film but the way it was dealt with was so perfectly in keeping with both Gilliam's identity and the raw, chaotic nature of his films that even that aspect is kind of appealing. Given that the choice was between this ambitious but somewhat ramshackle finished product and the whole thing being abandoned altogether, I'm happy to focus on the full half of the glass and enjoy it for all the many lovely things it brought to my table rather than slating it for the missteps it made along the way.

First off, Lily is too fast, too fast for love.

Ledger was good, but I think Johnny Depp should have been cast as Tony. He could easily play somebody who could sell children's organs on the black market, and still seem charming.

Tom Waits makes a great devil. He should have gotten his own movie.

I enjoyed the movie, but its no Time Bandits.

dreary louse was just all sorts of wrong in this thread.

Yeah, by quite a large margin. I watched this again yesterday, so the flick is fresh in my mind. I never did post my thoughts on it the first time around (well, outside of the "I'm about to watch..." thread), but for what it's worth, here is my take:

While it never once comes close to reaching the heights of Gilliam’s earlier, brilliant films (Brazil, 12 Monkeys, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas), Dr. Parnassus is nonetheless a definite step up from outright garbage like Brothers Grimm and Tideland. The only times the film actually comes alive is when Heath Ledger is on screen (would that be considered irony?), but as Devin said in his review, the sequence featuring Jude Law is something of a standout simply because it captures the anarchic spirit of a Monty Python skit. Overall, the film is a bit dull, drab, and unfocused, but it’s still charming enough at times to be considered a somewhat enjoyable mess. It's just too bad the whole thing completely falls apart in the third act.

Finally caught this and thought it was ok. Reminded me of Gilliam's Monty Python work in that it played like a series of sketches wrapped up into a shell of a film. A bit of mess towards the end as Devin put it in his review, with characters just acting weird and inconsistent. Also the plot doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But it has some decent energy throughout and some (at times) nice visuals. It's a shame Ledger died before finishing the role, and everyone did the best they could given the circumstances. Also, Lily Cole-- my god. With her and the new Dr Who companion, I'm getting the distinct impression that the UK is loaded with sexy gingers.

        I happen to like redheads myself, and Lily Cole is very pretty. BTW, she was in an episode of the current season of "Doctor Who". She played the Siren in "Curse of the Black Spot".