Having made a deal with the Devil himself for immortality many millennia ago, the now decrepit mystic Doctor Parnassus fights for the freedom of his only daughter's soul.Having made a deal with the Devil himself for immortality many millennia ago, the now decrepit mystic Doctor Parnassus fights for the freedom of his only daughter's soul.Having made a deal with the Devil himself for immortality many millennia ago, the now decrepit mystic Doctor Parnassus fights for the freedom of his only daughter's soul.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Nominated for 2 Oscars
- 5 wins & 23 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Just before leaving to go and see The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, the latest offering from the perpetually 'unlucky' yet stubbornly visionary Terry Gilliam (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Time Bandits), I asked a good friend, also a movie buff, if he wanted to come with.
"No way," he proclaimed. "I can't sit through a Terry Gilliam movie." Having sat through the 2 hour + film myself, I'm convinced he made the right decision, as I even had a tough time with it. It's definitely too long, rarely makes sense and feels as though it might unravel at any minute. As usual, Gilliam's imagination takes over the film, running completely wild in every direction, resulting in a rich visual feast that's a delight to look at. As usual, though, this comes at the expense of clarity and accessibility, which is unfortunate, especially so considering the multiple real-world challenges that severely disrupted the film's production and its theoretical comprehensibility anyway. Is Gilliam ever gonna catch a break? And, if he does, will he be relaxed enough to create something that more that a handful of folks might like? This film's script (mostly unchanged, despite production difficulties) will definitely try one's patience; characters make weird choices and important plot elements are left unexplained. As a decision seemingly made to serve the story, most of Gilliam's film operates on a kind of dream logic, which at the best of times put a huge grin on my face and made me feel all gooey inside and at the worst of times pulled me right out of the film, faster than a spilled cold Coke in the lap. As an example of the latter, one would think that Gilliam, having famously made the creative decision to bolster the late Heath Ledger's incomplete performance with the work of Johnny Depp, Colin Farrel and Jude Law, might have installed some sort of interesting yet logical plot device allowing that singular character to appear physically different at times. Sadly, the reasoning is, for some reason, half-baked - the other characters in the film are just as puzzled as the audience is at the changes, even going way too far with their "No, wait... who are you?" line of questions. If one's own characters seem to think it's out of place, then the audience will have no choice but to question it as well. Disbelief: unsuspended and resolute in its anchor-like stolidity (how's that for a sentence?).
Now, despite all that, I absolutely, positively and without question adored The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. Because Gilliam is really, really good at what he does best. It's far and away one of my favourite films of the year, and easily the most important film of Gilliam's career, warts and all. With Parnassus, he continues to stylistically explore potent ideas about the power of storytelling and imagination, and what happens when the worlds of fables and make-believe collide with our cynical, sober reality - all concepts I personally go nuts over. When in this mode, he always managed to sub-textually raise questions about imagination and dreams as important sign-posts in our collective unconscious, lighting the way to collective and individual hope, joy and happiness. The difference with Parnassus is that Gilliam has finally made a film that is explicitly and without question about that exact thing, positing at its core that stories and imagination and new ideas are the very things that hold the fabric of the universe together. A beautiful idea, and as relevant as ever considering Hollywood's constant push for the bottom line over creative integrity, and Gilliam's own personal feelings regarding his stifled creativity and the uncertainty of his place in modern cinema. And if you're anything like me (Naive? Simple?), this stuff, when fused with Gilliam's impeccable eye for composition and always fantastic production design will help you forget that the film isn't perfect or logical or accessible.
Despite all of the aforementioned flaws in the story (which, understandably, most movie-goers may have a low tolerance for), The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is actually quite brilliant, and contains some of the single best movie moments and ideas seen all year, and by dint of its stellar cast (besides Heath Ledger and friends, the film stars Christopher Plummer and Tom Waits, both in memorable roles), serves as a showcase for some of the best talent working in film at the time of production. But because of its flaws, it probably won't generate the word of mouth necessary to bring the crowds (and as such, the box office receipts) that Gilliam so desperately needs in order to continue to be able to make films of this scale. Which is too bad, as directors like Gilliam, who so zealously worship at the alter of imagination and visual splendour with a slavish dedication to film-making craft are not so high in abundance. Maybe if he was actually able to, you know, make a film without having outside elements messing up his plans, he might actually live up to his ultimate potential as an original story-teller able to easily reach the masses. As it stands, though, his status as such, as well as the very fabric of the universe it seems, continue to be under threat.
My score? 7/10.
"No way," he proclaimed. "I can't sit through a Terry Gilliam movie." Having sat through the 2 hour + film myself, I'm convinced he made the right decision, as I even had a tough time with it. It's definitely too long, rarely makes sense and feels as though it might unravel at any minute. As usual, Gilliam's imagination takes over the film, running completely wild in every direction, resulting in a rich visual feast that's a delight to look at. As usual, though, this comes at the expense of clarity and accessibility, which is unfortunate, especially so considering the multiple real-world challenges that severely disrupted the film's production and its theoretical comprehensibility anyway. Is Gilliam ever gonna catch a break? And, if he does, will he be relaxed enough to create something that more that a handful of folks might like? This film's script (mostly unchanged, despite production difficulties) will definitely try one's patience; characters make weird choices and important plot elements are left unexplained. As a decision seemingly made to serve the story, most of Gilliam's film operates on a kind of dream logic, which at the best of times put a huge grin on my face and made me feel all gooey inside and at the worst of times pulled me right out of the film, faster than a spilled cold Coke in the lap. As an example of the latter, one would think that Gilliam, having famously made the creative decision to bolster the late Heath Ledger's incomplete performance with the work of Johnny Depp, Colin Farrel and Jude Law, might have installed some sort of interesting yet logical plot device allowing that singular character to appear physically different at times. Sadly, the reasoning is, for some reason, half-baked - the other characters in the film are just as puzzled as the audience is at the changes, even going way too far with their "No, wait... who are you?" line of questions. If one's own characters seem to think it's out of place, then the audience will have no choice but to question it as well. Disbelief: unsuspended and resolute in its anchor-like stolidity (how's that for a sentence?).
Now, despite all that, I absolutely, positively and without question adored The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. Because Gilliam is really, really good at what he does best. It's far and away one of my favourite films of the year, and easily the most important film of Gilliam's career, warts and all. With Parnassus, he continues to stylistically explore potent ideas about the power of storytelling and imagination, and what happens when the worlds of fables and make-believe collide with our cynical, sober reality - all concepts I personally go nuts over. When in this mode, he always managed to sub-textually raise questions about imagination and dreams as important sign-posts in our collective unconscious, lighting the way to collective and individual hope, joy and happiness. The difference with Parnassus is that Gilliam has finally made a film that is explicitly and without question about that exact thing, positing at its core that stories and imagination and new ideas are the very things that hold the fabric of the universe together. A beautiful idea, and as relevant as ever considering Hollywood's constant push for the bottom line over creative integrity, and Gilliam's own personal feelings regarding his stifled creativity and the uncertainty of his place in modern cinema. And if you're anything like me (Naive? Simple?), this stuff, when fused with Gilliam's impeccable eye for composition and always fantastic production design will help you forget that the film isn't perfect or logical or accessible.
Despite all of the aforementioned flaws in the story (which, understandably, most movie-goers may have a low tolerance for), The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is actually quite brilliant, and contains some of the single best movie moments and ideas seen all year, and by dint of its stellar cast (besides Heath Ledger and friends, the film stars Christopher Plummer and Tom Waits, both in memorable roles), serves as a showcase for some of the best talent working in film at the time of production. But because of its flaws, it probably won't generate the word of mouth necessary to bring the crowds (and as such, the box office receipts) that Gilliam so desperately needs in order to continue to be able to make films of this scale. Which is too bad, as directors like Gilliam, who so zealously worship at the alter of imagination and visual splendour with a slavish dedication to film-making craft are not so high in abundance. Maybe if he was actually able to, you know, make a film without having outside elements messing up his plans, he might actually live up to his ultimate potential as an original story-teller able to easily reach the masses. As it stands, though, his status as such, as well as the very fabric of the universe it seems, continue to be under threat.
My score? 7/10.
It would have been hard not to like this movie, since I had early previews from friends that it is boring and pointless, so my expectations were really down. I did watch it, nonetheless, and I am glad I did. If you ever watched Tideland, you know Terry Gilliam is capable of works of terrible beauty, often concocted from the ugliest bits life can provide; such is this film.
This is Heath Ledger's last film, he died during filming it, but his character is not the main one, just the extra ingredient needed to take all the important ones out of their equilibrium state. Because of this tragedic death, other actors came to fill up the role, such as Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell.
And still, the important character, the Faust that can't keep himself from betting with a mischievous devil that isn't even very unfriendly, is Christopher Plummer's, who played marvelously at his age of 81. I loved the way the devil was toying with him, addicted to playing games that he didn't want to win in the end so that he keeps playing. The visuals were great, the atmosphere both miraculous and brooding, but rarely in the same time. And Lily Cole was cute and sexy as hell.
Bottom line: a weird film that you need to think about to get at his many hidden meanings, with beautiful imaginative imagery and great actors. What is not to like?
This is Heath Ledger's last film, he died during filming it, but his character is not the main one, just the extra ingredient needed to take all the important ones out of their equilibrium state. Because of this tragedic death, other actors came to fill up the role, such as Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell.
And still, the important character, the Faust that can't keep himself from betting with a mischievous devil that isn't even very unfriendly, is Christopher Plummer's, who played marvelously at his age of 81. I loved the way the devil was toying with him, addicted to playing games that he didn't want to win in the end so that he keeps playing. The visuals were great, the atmosphere both miraculous and brooding, but rarely in the same time. And Lily Cole was cute and sexy as hell.
Bottom line: a weird film that you need to think about to get at his many hidden meanings, with beautiful imaginative imagery and great actors. What is not to like?
I found this film interesting and visually stunning, but flawed. At least one of the flaws cannot be attributed to faulty writing/production, but several others can be. For example, there is nothing new or original in the story: it is a straightforward retelling of Faust, the man who makes a pact with the devil and discovers that the devil is smarter and has all the time in the universe to prove it. The ideas of a man who asks for immortality but neglects to ask for eternal youth, and of a child born with a curse on her because of a prior wager her father has made with divine powers to further his own interests, are taken straight out of Greek mythology. Still, one could do worse than borrow from Goethe and Greek mythology.
The movie weaves in and out of mundane reality (the traveling freak show in modern England) and schizophrenic hallucinogenic scenes inside the Imaginarium, which is the carnival attraction into which Dr. P lures potential sacrificial victims in his attempt to outwit the devil. The scenes inside the Imaginarium show what happens when you give an ex-Python unlimited access to digital effects: quite stunning, but having little to do with the story. They show the fantasy of Gilliam running wild on a huge budget, more than effectively advancing the story of Dr. P and his accursed daughter. I ask myself what a 1930s producer/director, Fritz Lang or Tod Browning for example, might have done with this story and these characters, but without the digital effects- -the story might have benefited from leaving the hallucinogenic details more to the imagination of the viewer than brow-beating us with a pixel- barrage of details. The real horror of what Dr. P is doing is masked by the almost Dr. Seussian silliness of the visual effects (dancing policemen??): Dr. P is luring souls to eternal damnation in an attempt to free his daughter from a wager he made centuries ago. Dr. P is, in essence, trading in human souls. Dr. P himself is immortal, but his daughter is not, and time is running out for her; the horror of her situation, and the evil Dr. P is willing to perpetrate to undo the effects of his own damnable wager, could certainly have been ratcheted up by more subtle means than Gilliam employs here.
The reality scenes sometimes interweave with the fantastical ones in schizophrenic confusion, indicating, so I suppose, Dr. P's own tenuous grasp on reality. The schizophrenic quality of the film is enhanced by the fact that several different actors play the part of one of the main characters, Tony. I ask myself whether any producer/director would have chosen this as his preferred mechanism to unfold this story, and the answer I come up with is, "no". It is a trick which doesn't quite work for this story; though it did work for "I'm Not There" (no one could play Bob Dylan). The film just barely manages to make the trick plausible by implying that the differences in the character's appearance are due to the perspectives of the different people who perceive that character within the Imaginarium. OK, it was made necessary by the death of the actor in the middle of production, otherwise the film would not have gone public; I can see that Gilliam made the best of terribly unfortunate circumstances. But it is still a dubious trick.
The casting is excellent: Plummer is entirely convincing as the world- weary Faustian character, Miss Cole acquits herself well as the girl clueless as to her own impending doom, and Waits is superb as the devil. If I hadn't seen any other film with Heath Ledger in it, I would not have thought him an especially gifted actor based solely on this performance; maybe if he had completed the film, it would have shown his true abilities.
6/10
The movie weaves in and out of mundane reality (the traveling freak show in modern England) and schizophrenic hallucinogenic scenes inside the Imaginarium, which is the carnival attraction into which Dr. P lures potential sacrificial victims in his attempt to outwit the devil. The scenes inside the Imaginarium show what happens when you give an ex-Python unlimited access to digital effects: quite stunning, but having little to do with the story. They show the fantasy of Gilliam running wild on a huge budget, more than effectively advancing the story of Dr. P and his accursed daughter. I ask myself what a 1930s producer/director, Fritz Lang or Tod Browning for example, might have done with this story and these characters, but without the digital effects- -the story might have benefited from leaving the hallucinogenic details more to the imagination of the viewer than brow-beating us with a pixel- barrage of details. The real horror of what Dr. P is doing is masked by the almost Dr. Seussian silliness of the visual effects (dancing policemen??): Dr. P is luring souls to eternal damnation in an attempt to free his daughter from a wager he made centuries ago. Dr. P is, in essence, trading in human souls. Dr. P himself is immortal, but his daughter is not, and time is running out for her; the horror of her situation, and the evil Dr. P is willing to perpetrate to undo the effects of his own damnable wager, could certainly have been ratcheted up by more subtle means than Gilliam employs here.
The reality scenes sometimes interweave with the fantastical ones in schizophrenic confusion, indicating, so I suppose, Dr. P's own tenuous grasp on reality. The schizophrenic quality of the film is enhanced by the fact that several different actors play the part of one of the main characters, Tony. I ask myself whether any producer/director would have chosen this as his preferred mechanism to unfold this story, and the answer I come up with is, "no". It is a trick which doesn't quite work for this story; though it did work for "I'm Not There" (no one could play Bob Dylan). The film just barely manages to make the trick plausible by implying that the differences in the character's appearance are due to the perspectives of the different people who perceive that character within the Imaginarium. OK, it was made necessary by the death of the actor in the middle of production, otherwise the film would not have gone public; I can see that Gilliam made the best of terribly unfortunate circumstances. But it is still a dubious trick.
The casting is excellent: Plummer is entirely convincing as the world- weary Faustian character, Miss Cole acquits herself well as the girl clueless as to her own impending doom, and Waits is superb as the devil. If I hadn't seen any other film with Heath Ledger in it, I would not have thought him an especially gifted actor based solely on this performance; maybe if he had completed the film, it would have shown his true abilities.
6/10
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is a very strange film but it pulls together wonderfully. It was dark but funny at the same time. I really loved the imaginarium sequences. Gilliam uses dream-like imagery and odd behavior to construct a fantastic escape into imagination. Although the CGI was admittedly simplistic, it was fitting for the fantasy realm. Great performances, especially by Heath Ledger and Colin Farrell.
I don't think this movie is for everyone since it has received mixed reactions. I also would advise against having certain expectations going into it, because there's no way to anticipate what you will get out of the film. But for me, it was certainly a real treat and very enjoyable throughout.
6/10
I don't think this movie is for everyone since it has received mixed reactions. I also would advise against having certain expectations going into it, because there's no way to anticipate what you will get out of the film. But for me, it was certainly a real treat and very enjoyable throughout.
6/10
Suffering the double whammy of being directed by Terry Gilliam (forever the attracter of on-set misfortune – Don Quixote, anyone?) and the untimely death of its star, Heath Ledger, halfway through shooting, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus has had a troubled upbringing. But with the actor's tragic passing, its unremarkable place on 2009's cinema calendar was upped by being Ledger's second posthumous and final movie, unfairly burdening the film with the anticipation of it being something great.
It's not great. But it is a good movie, and probably Gilliam's best in over a decade. Also, bittersweet though it may be, Ledger's inability to complete his work is remedied in an incredibly inventive manner that arguably improves what would have been; the multiple facets of Ledger's mysterious Tony in the Imaginarium is a great inflection, and Gilliam deserves credit for this creative retooling, and for the fact that the haste in which it was applied is not at all noticeable. Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell (who all donated their wages to his daughter, Matilda) honorably step in to play the alternates, paying poignant tribute to their friend. All are good (though Farrell's Irish accent is far too thick to flatten), Depp probably being the best, but its all mimicry; Ledger is the one who does all the work. His Tony, performed with a flawless English accent, is a great part for him, possessing all the characteristics of vintage Ledger – charismatic, droll, physically erratic, etc. It's not on par with his work in Brokeback Mountain or The Dark Knight, but seeing how much fun he must have been having, seeing that wily smile, makes it a none the more fitting goodbye to the man.
The multi-personas also, despite sounding like classically contrived Gilliam, actually turn out to be the most credible part of the movie; they represent the most fascinating of the film's many mediations on reality (Gilliam is always at best when toying with reality, and this is no exception) - different parallels of the human psyche (or at least Tony's) are all challenged, and make for genuinely thought-provoking stuff. The rest of the film, however, is a bit of a patchwork; provocative but hopelessly overwrought. As always with the Brazil director, you can't fault his ambition, but he's always been patently unable to neatly combine all of his ideas into a satisfying whole.
His biggest mistake is going contemporary. Gilliam's sense of humor, being that of a Python affiliate's, has always been well-authenticated by a theatrical and undeniably British zaniness. But here, we get modern social satire in the form of Tony's revamped version of the group's travelling act, and we get conversational verbosity (particularly in the poor improvisation of a pointless Verne Troyer), and it simply doesn't suit. Better are the moments where a group of "violence-loving" coppers dance about in skirts or in the inebriated ramblings of Doctor Parnassus.
Why Gilliam didn't stick to his personal brand of appealing outlandishness is a shame, and a mystery, considering his fine cast of comically-endowed Brits, with glorious thespian Christopher Plummer at its head as the titular Doc. Of all the actors on hand here, Plummer is the one who best excels with the material. Playing a man who has lived over one-thousand years, he manages to convincingly carry himself with the weight of that time, his sallow-skinned and ravaged face, heavy, sad eyes, and world-weary frown scarily naturalistic. He's a heart-breaking character, and Plummer makes him an uncompromising presence.
Also impressive are newcomers Andrew Garfield and Lily Cole, and Tom Waits as Mr Nick, the Devil himself. The notorious singer has never really had any good roles to work with in his career, and, in all fairness, his talents as an actor dictates just as much, but he's simply perfect here, his Machiavelli stealing all the scenes he wonderfully chews with his smarminess. It's not exactly a creation of noteworthy prowess (and neither is the character – the cavalier, smooth-talking, gentleman-like villain, who relishes fomenting, is very overdone), but he's just such a hoot and effortlessly magnetic. He's pretty much the best thing here, and worth the admission price.
Along with the cast, the visuals, a branch you can expect brilliance in with Gilliam, are a real saving grace. The special effects in the Imaginarium aren't extraordinary, but that's the point; it's an accentuated, animated reality – one's greatest dreams (and nightmares) aren't supposed to be realistic. And few images this year are more stirring than of a harrowed Parnassus wandering through a vast snow-plain, giving up his struggle at a crossroad sign that reads "High Road" or "Low Road".
It's a very entertaining movie, and thematically sound (it manages to make existentialism and solipsism accessible), and endearingly whimsical in tone and style. Unfortunately, it frequently degenerates into a muddle, the many ideas it juggles far too incoherently transcended. Thankfully, however, after the monotonous middle act, the movie picks up steam and the great Imaginarium sequences arrive to compel. And, in the end, it's a sheer miracle that the movie got made; the fact that Gilliam didn't give up, that he persevered and single-handedly defeated one of the worst production catastrophes, and that he gave Ledger his swansong, is something truly amazing. And it is for that reason that The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus will be remembered.
It's not great. But it is a good movie, and probably Gilliam's best in over a decade. Also, bittersweet though it may be, Ledger's inability to complete his work is remedied in an incredibly inventive manner that arguably improves what would have been; the multiple facets of Ledger's mysterious Tony in the Imaginarium is a great inflection, and Gilliam deserves credit for this creative retooling, and for the fact that the haste in which it was applied is not at all noticeable. Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell (who all donated their wages to his daughter, Matilda) honorably step in to play the alternates, paying poignant tribute to their friend. All are good (though Farrell's Irish accent is far too thick to flatten), Depp probably being the best, but its all mimicry; Ledger is the one who does all the work. His Tony, performed with a flawless English accent, is a great part for him, possessing all the characteristics of vintage Ledger – charismatic, droll, physically erratic, etc. It's not on par with his work in Brokeback Mountain or The Dark Knight, but seeing how much fun he must have been having, seeing that wily smile, makes it a none the more fitting goodbye to the man.
The multi-personas also, despite sounding like classically contrived Gilliam, actually turn out to be the most credible part of the movie; they represent the most fascinating of the film's many mediations on reality (Gilliam is always at best when toying with reality, and this is no exception) - different parallels of the human psyche (or at least Tony's) are all challenged, and make for genuinely thought-provoking stuff. The rest of the film, however, is a bit of a patchwork; provocative but hopelessly overwrought. As always with the Brazil director, you can't fault his ambition, but he's always been patently unable to neatly combine all of his ideas into a satisfying whole.
His biggest mistake is going contemporary. Gilliam's sense of humor, being that of a Python affiliate's, has always been well-authenticated by a theatrical and undeniably British zaniness. But here, we get modern social satire in the form of Tony's revamped version of the group's travelling act, and we get conversational verbosity (particularly in the poor improvisation of a pointless Verne Troyer), and it simply doesn't suit. Better are the moments where a group of "violence-loving" coppers dance about in skirts or in the inebriated ramblings of Doctor Parnassus.
Why Gilliam didn't stick to his personal brand of appealing outlandishness is a shame, and a mystery, considering his fine cast of comically-endowed Brits, with glorious thespian Christopher Plummer at its head as the titular Doc. Of all the actors on hand here, Plummer is the one who best excels with the material. Playing a man who has lived over one-thousand years, he manages to convincingly carry himself with the weight of that time, his sallow-skinned and ravaged face, heavy, sad eyes, and world-weary frown scarily naturalistic. He's a heart-breaking character, and Plummer makes him an uncompromising presence.
Also impressive are newcomers Andrew Garfield and Lily Cole, and Tom Waits as Mr Nick, the Devil himself. The notorious singer has never really had any good roles to work with in his career, and, in all fairness, his talents as an actor dictates just as much, but he's simply perfect here, his Machiavelli stealing all the scenes he wonderfully chews with his smarminess. It's not exactly a creation of noteworthy prowess (and neither is the character – the cavalier, smooth-talking, gentleman-like villain, who relishes fomenting, is very overdone), but he's just such a hoot and effortlessly magnetic. He's pretty much the best thing here, and worth the admission price.
Along with the cast, the visuals, a branch you can expect brilliance in with Gilliam, are a real saving grace. The special effects in the Imaginarium aren't extraordinary, but that's the point; it's an accentuated, animated reality – one's greatest dreams (and nightmares) aren't supposed to be realistic. And few images this year are more stirring than of a harrowed Parnassus wandering through a vast snow-plain, giving up his struggle at a crossroad sign that reads "High Road" or "Low Road".
It's a very entertaining movie, and thematically sound (it manages to make existentialism and solipsism accessible), and endearingly whimsical in tone and style. Unfortunately, it frequently degenerates into a muddle, the many ideas it juggles far too incoherently transcended. Thankfully, however, after the monotonous middle act, the movie picks up steam and the great Imaginarium sequences arrive to compel. And, in the end, it's a sheer miracle that the movie got made; the fact that Gilliam didn't give up, that he persevered and single-handedly defeated one of the worst production catastrophes, and that he gave Ledger his swansong, is something truly amazing. And it is for that reason that The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus will be remembered.
Did you know
- TriviaJohnny Depp, Colin Farrell, and Jude Law gave all the income they received for this movie to Heath Ledger's daughter Matilda, so that her economic future would be secure.
- GoofsAt the temple, bird feces lands on Mr. Nick's right shoulder. In the next shot, his jacket is clean.
- Crazy creditsThe credits begin with "A Film from Heath Ledger & Friends", which is tribute to Ledger who passed away during filming, and a nod to his real life friends (Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell, and Jude Law), who stepped in to finish his uncompleted scenes.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Friday Night with Jonathan Ross: Episode #17.4 (2009)
- SoundtracksWe Are the Children of the World
Written by Terry Gilliam
Arranged by Mychael Danna & Jeff Danna
Performed by Jam Theatre Company
Choir Conducted by Jo Noel (as Jo Noel Hartley)
- How long is The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Languages
- Also known as
- El imaginario mundo del Doctor Parnassus
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $30,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $7,689,607
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $415,233
- Dec 27, 2009
- Gross worldwide
- $61,808,775
- Runtime2 hours 3 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009) officially released in India in English?
Answer