Sony Pictures Classics | Release Date: December 25, 2009
7.1
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 196 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
125
Mixed:
55
Negative:
16
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
smijatovAug 28, 2010
I had high expectations of this film, but I ultimately ended up disappointed. Why? Well, the film is definitely attention-grabbing and the entire length of the film you feel captivated and mesmerised, which is the only positive thing in theI had high expectations of this film, but I ultimately ended up disappointed. Why? Well, the film is definitely attention-grabbing and the entire length of the film you feel captivated and mesmerised, which is the only positive thing in the film. The story is completely confusing and has really no point to it. After watching the film you feel as if you've wasted 2 hours of your life on something that had no point to it. Therefore, it's just a film that had no reason to be made in the first place, which is sad. Visual effects were atrociously bad, which I do understand is intentional, but it's still fugly.

The acting was pretty decent, but it still cannot make up for the lack of 'personality' of the film. Basically, you will not miss out on anything if you don't watch the film, but if you do you will just be annoyed that it's the way it is. Could have been much much better - especially if it would have had a point to it. Oh well, one can only wish and hope...
Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
2
JudddyApr 22, 2011
It seems rediculously unfinished, with an outrageous plot and quirky visuals which do look appealing, but ultimately confuse you. This is one of Terry Gilliam's worst films, and even the usually terrific Heath Ledger (tragically in his lastIt seems rediculously unfinished, with an outrageous plot and quirky visuals which do look appealing, but ultimately confuse you. This is one of Terry Gilliam's worst films, and even the usually terrific Heath Ledger (tragically in his last performance) is a disappointment. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
NerijusDJan 14, 2010
Ugly and repulsive film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
CharlotteM.Jan 23, 2010
I was chagrined to find that through a mix-up in times, I arrived at the movie theater a half hour late. It took a a bit of time to sort out the characters and plot, but this was eventually accomplished. Still, as the movie continued to I was chagrined to find that through a mix-up in times, I arrived at the movie theater a half hour late. It took a a bit of time to sort out the characters and plot, but this was eventually accomplished. Still, as the movie continued to develop, I became increasingly grateful that I had arrived late. The premise was excellent, the execution was poor. The movie was was similar to having a bad dream - confusing, fragmented, incoherent and worst of all - boring. This is the only movie I've ever given a 0. Save your money and give it a miss. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
CarolineCDec 30, 2009
This was an appalling film and felt much more like Gilliam's constipated sparkly turd. An awful mess. I understand that Gilliam and his friends like to buck the trend in traditional movie making but this went nowhere fast. It felt like This was an appalling film and felt much more like Gilliam's constipated sparkly turd. An awful mess. I understand that Gilliam and his friends like to buck the trend in traditional movie making but this went nowhere fast. It felt like a drunken stupor with copious amounts of creative vomit -- just get it out there and maybe the audience won't notice it's my puke! Also, those who "don't get it or were bored (like myself) just don't understand Gilliam's genius." Bullshit! Gilliam can be genius but Parnassus was not. Watch his other films, you'll have a lot more enjoyable time with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful