Not bad, eh?
― pithfork (Hurting 2), Saturday, 26 December 2009 03:48 (fifteen years ago)
you tell me. i'd like it to be good?
― forksĀ©lovetofu (forksclovetofu), Saturday, 26 December 2009 03:53 (fifteen years ago)
sequel to this?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457419/
― henri grenouille (Frogman Henry), Saturday, 26 December 2009 04:00 (fifteen years ago)
Worth seeing. Good performances from Waits and Ledger and Plummer, and a creditable attempt to finish a movie that was hard to finish. I wouldn't say I'd rush to see it again, but it had the Gilliam touch and was entertaining and interesting.
― pithfork (Hurting 2), Saturday, 26 December 2009 04:07 (fifteen years ago)
It had the Gilliam touch of falling short of a wholly satisfying film for 24 years?
didn't we have a thread on this? how did you guys spell it?
― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 26 December 2009 04:15 (fifteen years ago)
AV Club liked it. i'll probably see it soon, if nothing else b/c the last Terry Gilliam flick (of sorts) I saw on the big screen was Lost in La Mancha
― kingfish, Saturday, 26 December 2009 04:15 (fifteen years ago)
I found 12 Monkeys wholly satisfying fwiw. But I understand it would be against your religion to admit liking it for a number of reasons Morbs, and I respect that.
― pithfork (Hurting 2), Saturday, 26 December 2009 04:37 (fifteen years ago)
But to be clear, this DID fall short of wholly satisfying for sure.
― pithfork (Hurting 2), Saturday, 26 December 2009 04:40 (fifteen years ago)
better than avatar
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Sunday, 3 January 2010 04:40 (fifteen years ago)
way better than i thought it'd be tbh
― s1ocki bomaye (s1ocki), Sunday, 3 January 2010 04:53 (fifteen years ago)
after the first TIFF press screening everyone was all, "wait... that was... ok."
this movie was so damn well cast
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Sunday, 3 January 2010 05:27 (fifteen years ago)
Way better than Tideland, which I am having a hell of a time getting through. Shame about the CG.
― Simon H., Sunday, 3 January 2010 11:23 (fifteen years ago)
the crazy thing about this movie is the alternate-actor thing actually like WORKS pretty well... and i can't think of another movie that would have been so well-suited for such a switcheroo.
― s1ocki bomaye (s1ocki), Sunday, 3 January 2010 18:41 (fifteen years ago)
i could understand why the lady would see him as johnny depp, but don't know why he envisioned himself as jude law or colin farrell
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Sunday, 3 January 2010 18:52 (fifteen years ago)
srsly only fifteen posts on this?
― everybody's into weirdness right now (gbx), Wednesday, 13 January 2010 02:33 (fifteen years ago)
tryin to decide if i should see the laaaaaaaate show or just go to bed
Well, Heath Ledger's dead.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 January 2010 02:36 (fifteen years ago)
This was awesome
― kingfish, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 02:52 (fifteen years ago)
I thought it was very good and would recommend it to any Gilliam fan.
― Nate Carson, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 07:20 (fifteen years ago)
there's more discussion here: Terry Gilliam - C/D, S/D but I could swear there was a thread dedicated to it...
― FC Tom Tomsk Club (Merdeyeux), Wednesday, 13 January 2010 11:51 (fifteen years ago)
Month-old question but:
He imagined himself as Jude Law cuz Jude Law was a famous, respected rich guy and he wanted to be like that. Valentina was the one who imagined him as Colin Farrell because Colin Farrell was the guy in the magazine picture she was always looking at.
I liked this a lot, and I have a feeling I'd enjoy it a second time around since I wouldn't be unconsciously looking for seams.
― Al Gore invented the internet to house the bitterness of humanity (reddening), Sunday, 31 January 2010 10:10 (fifteen years ago)
bumped to help ian decide if he wants to see today
― Fusty Moralizer (Dr Morbius), Monday, 15 February 2010 14:36 (fifteen years ago)
This was... OK. Christopher Plummer unusually well cast. But a semi-mess like everything Gilliam's done since Brazil. I did like the effects way more than, say, Avatar.
― Fusty Moralizer (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 16 February 2010 03:23 (fifteen years ago)
yeah i have nothing to say about this one. completely missing any emotional resonance. last act was horrible. the rest was ok.
― by another name (amateurist), Tuesday, 16 February 2010 03:36 (fifteen years ago)
I liked this movie a whole lot. The last act is dumb, I agree, but i love Heath's stuff and the effects and crazy sets.
― Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 25 June 2010 02:16 (fifteen years ago)
wanted very much to like this movie, and did like about 75% of it - but still came away feeling a bit disappointed. takes too long ramping up to immersion in fantasy-land, and doesn't really deliver once we get there. it's not the cg i object to, cuz i love the look of the monastery and the kid's playland, it's that the last act is more silly and predictable than truly awe-inspiring. other big flaw is the weird absence of dramatic tension and deep emotion. the performances are all great, but i never felt the suspense i think i was meant to in response to the daughter's predicament, or the pathos of the closing scenes. it's reminiscent of the adventures of baron munchausen in lots of ways (good and bad), but munchausen eventually manages to wring some real emotion out of its struggles with aging and loss.
i dunno, i might like imaginarium more on a rewatch, when i wasn't so concerned with evaluating it relative to gilliam's career and my own expectations. it's a hell of lot better than either tideland or the brothers grimm, that's for sure.
― contenderizer, Friday, 25 June 2010 03:04 (fifteen years ago)
final act rushed-together messiness aside, i really enjoyed this. casting, sets and the gilliam 'feel' all present and correct.
tom waits, christopher plummer were both great
― ,,,,,,eeeeleon (darraghmac), Monday, 28 June 2010 02:55 (fifteen years ago)
stopped watching when johnny depp showed up; I think i'm done with gilliam
― obvious and old and bannable (forksclovetofu), Monday, 28 June 2010 05:43 (fifteen years ago)
damn that's cold- you sure you're not thinking of tim burton?
― ,,,,,,eeeeleon (darraghmac), Monday, 28 June 2010 08:51 (fifteen years ago)
that is an awfully early place to leave the film. this was pretty good, better than I'd been led to believe, certainly
― akm, Friday, 31 December 2010 15:23 (fourteen years ago)
agree that this was "not bad" - plenty of stuff to enjoy it and had the prototypical Gilliam visual wit and flair but ... script was a bit of a mess, definitely lacked any real tension/emotion, just kinda rambled on towards the end.
― ex-heroin addict tricycle (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 31 January 2011 17:52 (fourteen years ago)