The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009)

Title: The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009)

Director: Terry Gilliam

Cast: Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Collin Farrell, Christopher Plummer, Andrew Garfield, Lily Cole, Verne Troyer

Review:

When we watch a movie, most of the time we filter, interpret, and syphon it through the experiences we have lived through during the course of our own lives. We don't ever just "watch" a movie, we see it through our own lives. We give whatever meaning we want to the characters and situations we are watching, usually those meanings or interpretations are a mirror of ourselves. This is one of the main themes that Terry Gilliam's new film, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus plays with. Our imaginations represent us. They are like a calling card to who we are inside. Heavy stuff, considering Gilliam usually gives a very light tone to most of his films. But its obvious that Terry Gilliam is a man who is not happy with the way things are being run in the world, he has always, through most of his body of work retained an anti-system mentality towards things. This hate towards "the system" can be seen through the frustration of his characters with the way things are established. In Brazil, the main character cant deal with the fact that his life is so redundant and boring, so he escapes to another world where he is a hero. In 12 Monkeys, the government is using Bruce Willis to investigate our past, but really, they don't know what the hell they are doing, or even if they are doing it right. In Gilliam's films, this hate for the way things are, this hatred for the reality of things is being fought not with swords or guns, but with our imaginations.

Started out kind of heavy there with my review. But this was the latest Terry Gilliam film, and I am a huge Gilliam fan. So just keep in mind, this review comes from someone who loves and admires Gilliam's films a great deal. I have always admired how Gilliam escapes to these fantastical wonderful worlds. In many ways, Gilliam escapes from reality through his films, but at the same time, since we are talking about art here, Gilliam addresses certain issues, he needs to express. Like any good director, Gilliam criticizes and satirizes society through his movies. And in my opinion, society and the way things are deserve it. Screw it, what can I say? I agree with the guy. Things are fucked up. Gilliam is saying through his films that things are so messed up, so depressing that we need to escape to another imaginary world to be alright. Isn't that what films are all about? The "great escape"? And what better way to escape, then with this new Terry Gilliam film? What can I say about The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus? Well, that its a Gilliam film through and through. This isn't Gilliam restrained by corporate douche bags like in The Brothers Grimm, nope this is Gilliam once again cutting loose, still trying to amaze and wow us, and still commenting on the world we live in. With a touch of insanity and zaniness for good measure.

The film is about a traveling theater group. These guys go around town doing their little show, presenting "The Great Dr. Parnassus". They offer you great and wondrous things but only if you walk through the mirror to see it. Thing is, Dr. Parnassus is going around collecting souls, once they enter his mirror, they re-emerge happy and full of life. With new energies to face the darkness of the world. You know, the same way movies do. Anyways, Dr. Parnassus played by Christopher Plummer is an aging man, who just so happens to be immortal. He sold his daughter to the devil for said immortality. The deal being that when she turned 16 she would immediately become The Devils property. Of course, now that his daughter Valentina is 16, Dr. Parnassus wants nothing to do with that deal and is looking for away to break with it. Oh by the way, the devil is played with exquisiteness by the one and only Tom Waits. So anyhow, Parnassus is on the run. He goes around doing his little show, living in poverty with his daughter and theater group. In comes Heath Ledgers character, Tony. A man trying to forget who he once was and escaping his reality as well. He joins the theater group and helps them run the circus. Will the devil get his due? Will Parnassus escape the clutches of the devil and retain his daughter? And will Tony ever remember who he once was?

Speaking of Heath Ledger, I thought that he was going to be in the film a lot less, but apparently, he had filmed a lot! He of course, did a great job of portraying the two faced main character, Tony. The liar who enters the theater groups life, by playing an amnesiac. I always admired Ledger for wanting to back up Terry Gilliam as a director. Its quite obvious Ledger connected wit Terry Gilliam's artistic genius and decided to participate in this film. Same reason I respect Johnny Depp for doing the same, for being on Gilliam's films as if saying "this guy is great! Come see his films!" Johnny Depp's participation on this film is brief, but much appreciated in my book. Same goes for Jude Law, who has one of the coolest scenes in the movie, where he is going up these extremely long ladders that reached all the way to the clouds. Collin Farell did the best of the three. Farell actually acted as if he was Heath Ledger. Of the three invited actors who were chosen to fill in the gaps that Ledgers unfortunate departure inflicted upon this film, Farell was the one who embodied Ledger the best. Right down to his mannerisms and facial gestures. Lily Cole as Valentina -Dr. Parnassus's daughter- was a great casting choice on Gilliam's part. She has a strange kind of beauty. Like Christina Ricci, but even more otherworldly. Its an odd kind of beauty, but fits quite perfectly in a movie like this one. Cole looks like she would fit quite well in any fantasy film that would feature fairies or elves. She sure wasn't hard to look at thats for sure.

Speaking about the films themes I can say that it addresses many. I for one really thought that Gilliam was talking a lot about being Terry Gilliam. An aging director, and old fantasist whom nobody cares about anymore. Gilliam sees himself as the aging Parnassus, trying to bring his creaky old theater and stories to the people for their enjoyment. He wants audiences to transport themselves into his mirror worlds. His films. I of course am not one of those who doesn't care for Gilliam's films, I love them and welcome each one like a gift from the fantasy movie gods. I have always given Terry Gilliam props for being such an escape artist. He really loves to dive deep into that world we call "imagination", often bringing back the biggest and fattest imaginary fish in the pond. On this film, every time we go into Dr. Parnassus's magic mirror, every trip is different. You see, the world you find inside the mirror will reflect your own imagination, the things you like, the things you fear. I thought it was a wonderful allegory for how films mirror society, and how we should see ourselves in them. The film tries to shows us how we can see what we need to change about ourselves and the world we live in through films. How films both entertain and enlighten us. I think it was a great idea for Gilliam to work with Charles McKeown on this films script. McKeown has been actively working on fantasy films for some years now. He was responsible for writing The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and Brazil, both two of Gilliam's best films. Knowing that the writer of Baron Munchausen wrote this film makes perfect sense because The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus has many things in common with Munchausen. But more on that later. This paring of two great fantasist in one film, rejoining forces once again was a match made in heaven.

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is a film that speaks about the whole process of making a film. Yes my friends, this is yet another film about making films. And it comes as no surprise that Gilliam should want to address this subject matter. After all, he has been making complex and artistic films through out his whole life. Why shouldn't he make a film that summarizes everything he has learned through out the course of his directorial career? So in essence, Parnassus, is Gilliam. He wants to entertain us with his magic theater show. But what happens? People just aren't that interested anymore. They want something hip, something new, something edgy. And Gilliam even addresses this as well. The keeping up with the technology and the audiences ever changing interests. What should we sacrifice for our art, and for the pleasing of the audience? Tony, the "liar" looked to me like he was the young producer trying to present Gilliam to a new generation of audiences. Trying to update Gilliam's style and true nature.

In this film, Gilliam takes a stab at using computer generated images once again, same as he did in The Brothers Grimm. Gilliam has always been an "old school" filmmaker. He prefers to use mate paintings and miniatures to conjure up his fantasy worlds. Its been interesting to see Gilliam accept and use the tools of modern filmmaking on his films. Gilliam, very reluctantly has begun using CGI on his films. My own personal take on things is, I prefer the old Gilliam, with his miniatures and his paintings. But such is the modern world of films, computers have taken over. Gilliam has realized this and has decided to adapt. In The Brothers Grimm (the only Terry Gilliam film I can honestly say I dont love) the CGI was a complete disaster in my book. It brought the movie down because it wasn't beautiful. It wasn't even good. The CGI imagery in that particular Gilliam flick didn't work for me. Dr. Parnassus is Gilliams second attempt at using this new tool to tell his tale. I have to say that I see a great improvement. We get to see Gilliam's giant brooding castles, reminiscent of those we saw on Time Bandits. But in some of the imaginary worlds, the computer animation isn't all that great. Its on and off, I wouldn't say the effects were perfect. They were pretty to look at, but sometimes not all that realistic. They go more into the cartoonish side of things. More like something Gilliam might have cooked up during his animation days with the Monty Python group, but hey, its not bad for the kind of film were in, where we are going deep into the imagination, where anything can happen.

Hey, look! And old fantasist, a little girl and a theater group! Is it Imaginarium? Nope, its The Adventures of Baron Munchausen!

The only criticism I have for the film, and its not really that big of a deal is that the film is very similar in plot and situations to Gilliam's The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Here are the similarities:

- The film centers around the theater group, the actors and what happens behind stage - This is something we see in many of Gilliam's films. The hassle and the franticness of the world behind the stage. It is featured most prominently in Baron Munchausen.

- The film is centered around a little girl as the main character - Again, something Gilliam loves to do. We saw it Tideland, Baron Munchausen and now in Dr. Parnassus.

- The little girl is always pushing the old man not to give up the fight - In Baron Munchausen, the little girl is always pushing Munchausen not to fall asleep, not to give up, to continue the fight, the journey till the very end. Same happens here with Dr. Parnassus and his daughter Valentine.

- The old fantasist tells a tale, and the audience is pulled into it with him

- An evil character dressed in black follows the main character around. In Munchausen it was death, in Parnassus it was Tom Waits as TheDevil.

Those Terry Gilliam fans out there will notice the similarities with that film. But, same as Tideland, this new Terry Gilliam film has a darker side to it. Theres not so much comedy to the film, its bleaker. Darker. Again, the film mirrors its artist, so Terry Gilliam is a dark soul, who doesn't want to let go of that childlike wonderment he gets from fantasy and the use of his imagination. But I miss that time when Gilliam would put a lot of humor into his fantasy tales. But I guess we all change, we seldom stay the same. We evolve, and more often then not, when we grow and learn about the way things really are, we become just a little darker and sadder inside. The world can be a dark place, with dark experiences, but it can also hold great beauty. it all depends on how you look at things.

Rating: 4 out of 5

The ultimate fantasist himself, Terry Gilliam taking a break in between scenes

Black Swan (2010)

Title: Black Swan (2010)

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Cast: Natalie Portman, Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis

Review:

Darren Aronofsky has this incredible ability to make films that play with premises that I would normally not care about. Yet somehow, the way he weaves his tale completely pulls me, and before I know it, voila! I’m hooked! This happened to me with Aronofsky’s The Wrestler (2008). When I first heard that Aronofsky was making a movie that took place in the world of wrestling, at first I was turned off by the idea. I was like what? I freaking hate wrestling! It’s so fake! Yet Aronofsky managed to pull me in with this incredibly personal and introspective story about an aging ex-wrestler trying to do what he loves, trying to recapture his glory days. And there I was, watching a movie about wrestling. And I was completely moved by its honesty and its emotion. Now here comes Black Swan, a film about a ballet dancer. And it happened again! I was like: what? Ballet? Seriously? Still, I’ve come to entirely trust Aronofsky as a director. He has never disappointed me with his films. Ever! Was Black Swan going to be his first one? Or would he wow us again with another amazing film?

Black Swan tells the story of a New York City ballet dancer named Nina (Portman) who really wants to make it. Her dream is to play the Swan Queen in a play called Swan Lake. She tries her best to impress the director of the play (Vincent Cassel) so that she will get her chance. Much to her surprise she is actually chosen! Finally, her dreams are coming true! Now she has to learn to deal with the pressures that come with participating in such a prestigious play. In the play, she has to perform the role of two characters at the same time, the White Swan and the Black Swan. One is innocent, the other more sensual and daring, edgy. The director of the play doesn’t think Portman has enough of an edge to play the Black Swan, so he is constantly pushing her to “let go” to “live” to let the dark side of her soul emerge and run wild. This is Portman’s struggle in the film; should she continue trying her best to be the good girl her mother wants her to be? Or should she live her life the way she wants to live it? Which side will win the battle?

Once again, Aronofsky succeeds in blowing me away. Black Swan, in my opinion is another stunning work of art in Aronofsky’s repertoire. In many ways, it’s similar to The Wrestler. They are both films about the working class, struggling to do what they love. They are both films about someone loving what they do so much, that they’d rather die doing it, then waste their lives doing something else. And they are both very personal stories. On both films, we follow a character closely, to the most intimate moments in their lives. The camera plays the role of the ultimate voyeur, always looming on top of the actors face, or behind them, following their every move. The similarities between both films do not end there. Originally, what Aronofsky wanted to make was one film in which a Wrestler falls for a Ballet dancer. Ultimately, The Wrestler ended up falling in love with a whore (played by Marisa Tomei) and Aronofsky separated that story into two films deciding that it would all have been too much for one movie. So in many ways, Black Swan can be seen as a companion piece to The Wrestler.

Aronofsky once again uses that documentary style that he used in The Wrestler, where the handheld camera is active all the time, following characters around. This story focuses mainly on Nataly Portman’s character, her struggles in trying to make it professionally. This is a girl who loves dancing and wants nothing more then to really make it, she wants to get a taste of greatness, of being recognized and appreciated. What I really loved about it though was that she also has to struggle with all these things that get in her way. The over protective mother, the rivalries with other dancers and her own psychological woes. It all builds up to that climactic moment when she finally achieves her goal, and you are right there with her when she makes it, you kind of get a taste of that greatness yourself. In this way the film was similar to many of Aronofsky’s other films, where events start to build momentum, slowly rising, in a crescendo, until by the films last frames we reach this amazing finale.

The film addresses themes that I wasn’t expecting. Like for example, the over protective mother who doesn’t let her daughter live her life and be herself. And this is really where the film caught me off guard because I thought it was only going to be about the struggles of a ballerina trying to make it, about following her dreams and all that. And it does address these themes, but as it turns out, the film explores a whole other group of themes as well. This is really the story of a sexually repressed girl who is so uptight, so wound up, and so conservative that she hasn’t really lived her life. Everyone keeps telling her to “relax and live a little”. So this is a story about someone learning to let go of all these rules that she lives by and learning to just have a little fun. She is the kind of girl who says she isn’t a virgin, but her shyness when it comes to talking about sex let’s us know otherwise. What I loved most about the movie was how Aronofsky compares the duality between the Black and White Swans in the play with the battle in the ballerinas’ life between being the good girl or the bad girl. That internal struggle is externalized in the play with both of the swans representing innocence and lust. Will she ever transform into who she’s really supposed to be?

The film is very dark, and at times it felt as if I was watching a Roman Polanski film. I make this comparison because like many Polanski films, Black Swan stars a female as the central character and this female is paranoid and unstable psychologically. Aronofsky plays with the notions of Natalie Portman’s character having a double, a doppelganger, so theres always that paranoia of “is someone watching me?” Aronofksy is always questioning the main characters mental state. I loved how he used mirrors on the film to illustrate her mental instability. And though it does feel like Polanskis The Tenant (1976) or Repulsion (1965) at times, it’s also very much a Darren Aronofsky film. I especially noticed this by the way he shot everything documentary style, and also because of how the film works itself up in a crescendo, by the end of the film both music and images have completely taken over. Even dialog falls into second place in the end. The direction, the shots, the editing is flawless.

By the way, I was not at all aware of it, but this “independent” film that comes to us from Fox Searchlight Pictures (20th Century Fox’s indie minded films division) was such a huge event! Well, at least here in Puerto Rico people are going to see this movie by the droves! I had not seen a line like that one at the art house theater in a loooong time! I was trying to pinpoint exactly what it was that was attracting so many people to the cinema to see Black Swan. Could it be the awesome poster? Natalie Portman? Darren Aronofsky as a director? Then it dawned on me, people are coming in droves to see this movie because they have heard that Portman pleasures herself and has oral sex with another woman in it. I guess that’s the main draw for most people. But to those that are going to see it for that reason alone, I can say this: you might be going to see Portman pleasure herself, but you will also be seeing another diamond in Darren Aronofsky’s directorial career. I have to wonder, what’s next for this amazing director?

Rating: 5 out of 5

 

Vincent Casell and Aronofsky talking out a scene

Killer Tomatoes Strike Back (1991)

Title: The Killer Tomatoes Strike Back (1991)

Director: John De Bello

Cast: John Astin, J. Stephen Peace, Rick Rockwell, Crystal Carson

Review:

I recently reviewed Return of the Killer Tomatoes (1988) and gave it a favorable review because it was an extremely silly film, extremely slap stick, extremely low budget, but also extremely entertaining. It’s not a masterpiece or anything, but hey, it made me laugh on more than one occasion and that’s saying a lot when it comes to comedies these days. So after watching the second film, I wondered if there were anymore Killer Tomatoe movies. To my surprise, as it turns out there are two more sequels! The Killer Tomatoes Strike Back (which I will be reviewing today) and The Killer Tomatoes Eat France (1992). All the killer tomato movies were directed by the same guy responsible for all the other Killer Tomatoe movies, so I thought I’d give ‘em a chance, see what they were all about.

Prof. Gangrene is back with another diabolical plan!

On this second film, people have stopped fearing killer tomatoes. In fact, most people don’t even believe that such a thing as a killer tomato can exist! While in the first film the mere mention of the word ‘tomatoes’ could drive a crowd into a chaotic frenzy (my choice for funniest moment in the second film) on this one people have chosen not to believe that tomatoes are deadly anymore. Meanwhile, Prof. Gangrene (the mad scientist behind the creation of the killer tomatoes) has turned into a talk show host and is planning on once again setting the tomatoes loose, so he can take over the world! Enter detective Lance Boyle to investigate a series of ‘tomato murders’ that have been occurring through out the city. He enlists on the help of local tomatologist (that’s right a person who studies tomatoes!) Kennedi Johnson to try and uncover the mystery behind all these tomatoe murders. Are the tomatoes looking for a way to strike back after their defeat on the last film?

Nothing worse than a vengeful tomato army!

What happened with this sequel, was the same thing that happened to Frank Henenlotter’s Basket Case films. The first one was really gritty, dark and dirty. You get the impression he wiped the floor of 42nd street with that film. But when that first film reached cult success, the sequels were done with a bit more money, the result was Basket Case 2 (1990) a film that looks ultra shinny and colorful, the complete opposite of the grimy filth of the original. I feel like this is the same thing that happened with this third Killer Tomatoes film. They obviously got a slightly bigger budget then the first two films, even the killer tomatoes are cooler looking now. But along the way, the film lost a bit of its edge. While the second film was an avalanche of jokes and gags, some of them of the sexual nature, the edgy/sexy comedy from the first film was toned down for this third outing, so that the film could be seen by the kiddies that were watching the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes animated series that was running back then. So it’s a slightly more kiddy friendly version of the Killer Tomatoes.

The Killer Tomatoes have spawned cartoon shows, video games and even a comic book series!

I was a bit disappointed with this movie because it didn’t really pick up where the last one left off. On the last one, the last scene involved two giant carrots with bandanas and machine guns, giving us the impression that there was going to be some sort of war between tomatoes and carrots. Unfortunately on this one, we never see any carrots with machine guns. What ever happened to those? Who the hell knows, maybe they’ll make an appearance on the fourth film in the series, which I will be watching and reviewing sometime soon. Instead of killer carrots, this sequel centers once again on Prof. Gangrenes third attempt at world domination; through the use of bad television no less! That’s right, in order to hide his true identity from the rest of the world, Prof. Gangrene is masquerading himself as a talk show host called Jeronahew. This time, Gangrene is hell bent on hypnotizing the whole world. You see, on this movie, Prof. Gangrene’s hatred for human kind is more powerful than ever; so his plan is to fix humanity so that they will be have to his liking. Once again, the best thing about the film is John Astin playing the role of Prof. Gangrene. It’s interesting that the film managed to get a lot of the franchise’s regular actors to come back for this film. We get to see Capt. Wilbur Finletter again, he was the hero in the first two films, and on this one he works as the chief of police. We see Even Fuzzy Tomato (aka ‘F.T.’) returns for this movie!

The Killer Tomatoes have actual faces on this movie!

The biggest difference with this movie is how they decided to portray the killer tomatoes. In the first film, we saw giant faceless tomatoes rolling through the streets killing every human they came upon. On the second one, the tomatoes were transformed by Prof. Gangrene into tough dudes who looked like Rambo. And on this third one, well, we actually get these little tomatoes with faces on them. I think that finally, after three films they did what they had always wanted to do with these killer tomato movies. I mean, the killer tomatoes are like little Gremlins. They talk through a series of peeps, squeaks and high pitched sounds that reminded me of Gizmo from Gremlins (1984). Though I had fun with the second films choice of transforming the tomatoes into an army of tough oiled up dudes, I gotta admit that I enjoyed actually seeing little tomatoes with angry faces on them. It’s what you expect to see when you hear a title like ‘Attack of the Killer Tomatoes’. I liked how there are many variations on the tomatoes. On this film we get gangster/godfather tomato, we get pool playing tomatoes, we get bar fly tomatoes, and we even get a ninja tomato in this movie!

Prof. Gangrene tortures someone by making him watch bad television!

These movies all have that Zucker brothers type of slapstick humor to them. The kind of humor and gags we see in films like Airplane (1980) and The Naked Gun (1988), where we get a laugh a minute, gag a second type of deal. These kinds of films do not respect any kind of cinematic rules. For example, characters are constantly breaking the fourth wall and talk to us. In one scene, Prof. Gangrene is sending a couple of killer tomatoes to attack the good guys and suddenly he stops and starts talking about how much he loves being a villain. Unfortunately, a lot of the jokes fall flat. Believe it or not, the movie actually turns a bit boring, going from one lame situation to the next. I remember thinking that the film is composed of the most unimportant series of events ever. That’s low budget for ya! There wasn’t a lot of money to throw around, so the situations in the film are never to complex, the director keeps it simple and silly. But what kept me watching was John Astin and his zany mad scientist, F.T. the fuzzy little mutant tomato from the second film and the little killer tomatoes, which I thought were quite funny looking.

Dr. Gangrene loves being the villain!

But even though the comedy is not as funny on this one, there are a few moments that stand out as amusing and entertaining. For example, when the film opens, they decided to do a Friday the 13th parody, with a hockey player following a girl around the forest, trying to kill her when suddenly, a bunch of killer tomatoes appear with little hockey masks and little chainsaws and kill the masked murderer in the woods as if saying “killer tomatoes are more bad ass then Jason Voorhees”. There is a homage to Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) in which a killer tomato attacks a girl in the shower. There is one awesome scene in which the good guys walk into a bar and it’s this clandestine underground watering hole for killer tomatoes. So there’s killer tomatoes playing pool, there’s a killer tomato drinking at the bar, and there is even this hilarious homage to The Godfather in which the good guys have to negotiate with the Don Corleone of killer tomatoes for some information. Hee-la-rious! Also, the film ends with this whole sequence which runs through the credits, in which cast and crew are in a locker room, as if they were a basketball team, but instead they are a filmmaking team. And they all talk as if they were sports guys who just came out of a game, all excited and exhausted and being interviewed by a sports reporter. It’s funny how these whole sequence plays out, they just came out of making the film and they are all like “it wasn’t easy, but we made it!” Even John De Bello, the films director shows up.

In conclusion, this film is pretty bad. Same as all the Tomato movies. I don’t think you will find one reviewer who will say that these films are good. But what they are is silly lighthearted fun. The ideas behind these films are so crazy that you keep watching. I mean come on, lets face it, ninja tomatoes?? A guy even uses a tomato as a weapon to rob a bank! The characters in this film all act like 12 year olds in adult bodies. Watching any of these tomato movies is the cinematic equivalent of reading an issue of MAD magazine. Some jokes are awful, some will make you giggle, and some are hilarious! Just don’t expect a masterpiece and you should be fine.

Rating: 2 out of 5