Still catching up with Cannes material. So, Terry Gilliam’s “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” screened at Cannes over the weekend and reactions were… well mixed (as were the reactions to many of the films at the 62 annual Cannes Film Festival).
The Hollywood Reporter found it unsuccessful overall. “]The] big question is whether Gilliam has produced something to rank with his great fantasies “Time Bandits” and “Brazil,” and the answer is sadly no. A carnival show with a mirror to the imagination allows Gilliam to employ his remarkable gift for imagery, but the worlds he creates will not take the breath away of children or grown-ups. The combined star power involved will generate a plentiful boxoffice return, but the film is neither intelligent enough nor silly or grotesque enough to become a lasting favorite.”
Variety‘s review tends to look at it as a forgiving apologist view, saying it’s not half bad, “considering the trauma and difficulties stemming from Heath Ledger’s death during production.” They add, “Terry Gilliam has made a pretty good thing out of a very bad situation…the often overreaching director addresses a mad hatter of a story with the expected visual panache and what is, for him, considerable discipline. With Ledger onscreen more than might have been expected, the film possesses strong curiosity value bolstered by generally lively action and excellent visual effects, making for good commercial prospects in most markets.” They also note that Ledger is in the picture far longer than they expected and that Johnny Depp, the first of the magical, “Tony” doppleganger’s doesn’t appear onscreen until the 66 minute mark.
Indiewire’s Eric Kohn was much less forgiving and said, “Marred by shoddy special effects and half-formed fantastical conceits, Terry Gilliam’s ‘The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus’ has the feeling of a comic fantasia desperately seeking to find its rhythm.”
Mike D’Angelo at the A/V Club gives it a C-grade and says it’s just maddeningly capricious with no weight or soul. “[Gilliam] mistakes hectic for antic, continually throwing whimsical images at the screen in the vain hope that something might stick. Really, the last place you want to see Gilliam take up residence is in a goddamn “Imaginarium”—his paeans to the power of unfettered dreaming work best when they’re tethered to some sort of grim, even nightmarish reality. All that’s at stake in this film is the soul of a chipmunk-cheeked teenage girl, the subject of a wager between Doctor Parnassus and the Devi. As the amnesiac everyman caught in the middle, Ledger can’t find much to do, I’m sorry to say; even if you see this film, keep thinking of the Joker as his swan song.”
Stephen Garett for Time Out New York has mixed views on it calling it, “surprisingly watchable and more than a little bittersweet,” but notes that ultimately, “the whole exercise relies almost too much on dream logic—never a good idea when Gilliam is involved.”
The London Times also have mixed feelings about it, but definitely see value in the film. They call Ledger a “marvel to watch,” but suggest Gilliam is victim to his own idiosyncracies. “The film is a romantic homage to the art of make believe, and it grants Gilliam a license to run riot with his mind-bending illusions. But the story that holds these visions together is slim, incomprehensible, and desperately unconvincing… the film could have benefited with a lot more hard story and a lot less whimsy. But it is a visually stunning watch.”
Why does that last review not surprise us at all?
EW’s Lisa Schwarzbaum shares many of the same sentiments: pretty to look at, but struggling to find a coherent story. “The Imaginarium ripples, in a Through the Looking Glass fashion, with intricate tricks of time-travel and opulent displays of visual fantasy. All roads lead, after a fashion, back to the Victorian-flavored, surrealistic collages the guy used to make in Monty Python days. Small problem here: The plot’s a mess of disconnected episodes, and the circus-y visual style adds to a feeling of … quiet desperation.”
FirstShowing seems to love the flights of fancy calling it the filmmaker’s best film in a decade and seemingly ok with overlooking its problems. “Gilliam takes us on a whimsical journey through the streets of London with a story that may have some big flaws, but is still an experience to watch.”
The BBC says, it’s for a niche audience only. “There’s no doubt that the imaginary world [Gilliam has] created is awe-inspiring, but it’s ultimately designed for an art house audience.”
The U.K. Guardian isn’t much kinder. “The film’s convoluted curlicues are tiring, insisting too loudly on how ‘imaginative’ everything is. And when it descends into the real world the film can frankly be a bit ho-hum, with some very broad acting from the bit-part crowd players.”
It’s a little sad to hear all this (note the word “desperation” being used three different times), but not exactly surprising. Gilliam is manically fanciful to a fault. And the film hasn’t yet sold yet which doesn’t exactly bode well either. Still, with Heath Ledger’s last appearance, Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell and Jude Law, the film will draw some kind of audience, even if it’s the curiosity seekers looking to see Ledger one more time. We know despite these mixed (that’s being generous) reviews, we’ll still need to see it with our own eyes and so will many others. The film will also undoubtedly come out this year, but it sounds like a film that will start out in limited release (i.e. a small film) that will come out via the likes of Sony Pictures Classics, IFC, or Overture and not by any major studio. Maybe someone like Fox Searchlight would be interested? Haven’t heard them in the mix at all so probably not. We’ll see soon enough we’re sure. Last Gilliam said he was still hoping to have the film out for the fall, though awards seasons sounds decidely out of reach.
