| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| randall |
Posted - 05/01/2010 : 21:34:14
Terry Gilliam may not only be the most visionary [in the eyeball sense] filmmaker alive [with Kubrick now gone], but also the most unlucky. The implosion of his DON QUIXOTE project has even been captured on film. Now his principal actor fucking dies on him at age 28! So I'm happy to report that he saved Heath Ledger's final project in medias res. It's not the disaster you imagine, I imagined, all of us imagined. A clever rewrite by the BRAZIL writing team allows Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell to step in for Ledger in roles that, amazingly, do not disturb the story. I don't want to go into the details because I hope you screen this one for yourselves, but if you can't surrender to the visual, if you have to know why everything's happening, then stay far, far away. Gilliam is David Lynch with broad humor. If that sounds like fun, then by all means rent this one. |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 19:49:25
quote:
Originally posted by randall
Oops: sometimes these cheeky thread titles work against us -- sorry! [No possible way to search it out, b/c I assure you, I tried!] Whatchathink?
Quite. |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 05/05/2010 : 20:42:01
I'm actually giving this one two viewings before I gel an opinion. Visually stunning the first time around, and something appealing too, though it's a bit of a jerky ride. And I'm an oooooooooooold time Waits fan (I think I once told the story of how I "almost" met him -- classic). |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 05/05/2010 : 16:12:08
Me and my friend made separate observations about why Parnassus does not work:
My point: When Ledger wants to go back into the Imaginarium, he tries to force Parnassus to go into a trance because, as he says, "you have to be in a trance for it to work." My thought was, "...he does?" Why couldn't that have been established beforehand? Yes, I know he's wacky and artful or so forth; I don't think it's fair that he uses that as a shield against incoherence and ramshackle plotting.
My friend's point, which is better: So people go into the imaginarium and they have to make a moral choice. How does it work that the "good" choice is represented by a bunch of policemen in skirts doing a chorus girl dance while sticking their asses out, and the bad choice is a giant mother? What? I know Gilliam is all about his imagery and spectacle over plot and dialogue, but what does it mean when the images are this random and meaningless? You could not say the same thing about "Brazil" or "Fear and Loathing" or even "Baron Munchausen," and "Baron Munchausen" sucks! (For what it's worth, I did like "Imaginarium" at least a little -- certainly more than "Baron Munchausen" or "Time Bandits." |
| rabid kazook |
Posted - 05/04/2010 : 11:16:01
I don't think and if Gilliam had made Don Quixote (in early 2000s was it) it would have ended up as good as everyone hails. After watching Lost in La Mancha it seemed like the production values were very similar to Tideland and Parnassus, and both of those frankly blow.
T&P, while capturing this unappealing bad-theater-play production values, also reimagined all the plot contrivedness, and had no artistic value whatsoever.
And if Gilliam is still interested in making interesting movies he should balance more "mainstreamy" elements (like in all his best movies), and stop with this crap.
I don't know, do some fun music, exciting adventure moments... and still implant lot of your grinding and satirical stuff.
|
| randall |
Posted - 05/01/2010 : 22:34:39
Oops: sometimes these cheeky thread titles work against us -- sorry! [No possible way to search it out, b/c I assure you, I tried!] Whatchathink? |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 05/01/2010 : 22:00:22
And there's this cheekily titled thread 
|
|
|
