4 ms·

I loved this film. Its quirky and scattered in all of the right ways. I really admire Gilliam's persistence over the years -- and I'm thankful that he was will

I loved this film. Its quirky and scattered in all of the right ways. I really admire Gilliam's persistence over the years -- and I'm thankful that he was willing to allow not one, but two documentaries to be filmed about the struggle to be made. Critics have been a little lukewarm to the film, but everybody I know who has seen it has loved it. It has definitely lived up to the hype. Its a shame I wasn't able to catch it with a proper theatrical release. Its beautifully shot, like a lot of his films.

monocasa 7y ago
The standard critics have it out for Terry Gilliam for a bunch of reasons not related to the quality if his work.
- neves 7y ago
  May you elaborate?
  - monocasa 7y ago
    There was a lot of bad blood over the US studio's reedit of Brazil to give it a happy ending (which was atrocious). Following that Baron Munchausen was a flop (and while I like it, def not his best work to be fair). After that he was sort of written off from the establishment as it were (including the critics who know to pay the piper). But while that would have killed off the careers of most directors, Terry Gilliam has this ineffable quality about him that's allowed him to keep getting independent funding, keep getting very good actors, and keep making great movies. It's one thing if your independent and the system hasn't noticed you yet, but the system turned it's back on him and somehow he's still out there killing it. The system out of spite acts out against him wherever it can. You can see this most clearly in the Metacritic for Tideland which is pretty positive as far as user submitted reviews go, but is one of the worst movies ever if you were to go off the critics reviews.
    - Steko 7y ago
      > After [Munchausen] he was sort of written off ... including the critics who know to pay the piper Do the facts even support this? The Fisher King and 12 Monkeys followed Munchausen and were well reviewed critically. Instead of inventing a cabal of critics out to get Gilliam, let’s just acknowledge that he’s made a number of divisive films. Michael Palin’s comments to Gilliam about Tideland encapsulate this: I don't like the movie, I'm afraid I have to say, to be honest. But it's now the next day and there are images that I still cannot shake, that I can't get rid off. Either this is the best movie you've made, or your worst!
      - monocasa 7y ago
        The Metacritic scores for the Fisher King and 12 Monkeys is still well under the user reviews.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - npsimons 7y ago
      > You can see this most clearly in the Metacritic for Tideland which is pretty positive as far as user submitted reviews go, but is one of the worst movies ever if you were to go off the critics reviews. The problem is, critics are usually right, and the audience usually isn't. This is because critics have studied film, often went to film school, and can point out just exactly how a film fails. That being said, Gilliam is the rare exception, and I do believe it is because of that ineffable quality about him and his directorial style. Maybe it's because I grew up with it, but "Time Bandits" is still one of my favorite films of all time. "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" was not really very well made, but it's still distinctly Gilliamesque, and it actually works around the death of Heath Ledger very adroitly. "Zero Theroem" was also a bit disappointing, but it's still at least different, not your usual Hollywood schlock. "Brazil" was Gilliam par excellence; I am hopeful his take on Quixote is good, but even if it isn't, it will almost definitely be interesting.
      - 7y ago
- RobertKerans 7y ago
  I love Gilliam films, and I'll watch anything he does, but I think this a stretch: he's _very_ patchy. No-one ever accuses him of not being interesting, of not being full of ideas, not having a unique vision. It's just that those ideas are so rarely fully realised, and his films tend to ramble. They often feel incomplete, more surface than depth, gossamer. As I say, I love his films and I'd happily watch almost anything he's done, but I don't know how much of that is down to me being enamoured of what he obviously tries to achieve. I just can't see how the critics are wrong most of the time w/r/t his films, and to me those bad reviews have generally come across as respectfully disappointed more than anything else.
  - malloryerik 7y ago
    When they aren't at their best, sitting through his films can feel like watching some captivating person shoot arrows at the moon.
    - RobertKerans 7y ago
      Yes, definitely, thats a nice description. He tends to miss quite a bit, and can be a quite frustrating experience just willing those arrows to hit.

monocasa 7y ago

The standard critics have it out for Terry Gilliam for a bunch of reasons not related to the quality if his work.

neves 7y ago
May you elaborate?
- monocasa 7y ago
  There was a lot of bad blood over the US studio's reedit of Brazil to give it a happy ending (which was atrocious). Following that Baron Munchausen was a flop (and while I like it, def not his best work to be fair). After that he was sort of written off from the establishment as it were (including the critics who know to pay the piper). But while that would have killed off the careers of most directors, Terry Gilliam has this ineffable quality about him that's allowed him to keep getting independent funding, keep getting very good actors, and keep making great movies. It's one thing if your independent and the system hasn't noticed you yet, but the system turned it's back on him and somehow he's still out there killing it. The system out of spite acts out against him wherever it can. You can see this most clearly in the Metacritic for Tideland which is pretty positive as far as user submitted reviews go, but is one of the worst movies ever if you were to go off the critics reviews.
  - Steko 7y ago
    > After [Munchausen] he was sort of written off ... including the critics who know to pay the piper Do the facts even support this? The Fisher King and 12 Monkeys followed Munchausen and were well reviewed critically. Instead of inventing a cabal of critics out to get Gilliam, let’s just acknowledge that he’s made a number of divisive films. Michael Palin’s comments to Gilliam about Tideland encapsulate this: I don't like the movie, I'm afraid I have to say, to be honest. But it's now the next day and there are images that I still cannot shake, that I can't get rid off. Either this is the best movie you've made, or your worst!
    - monocasa 7y ago
      The Metacritic scores for the Fisher King and 12 Monkeys is still well under the user reviews.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - npsimons 7y ago
    > You can see this most clearly in the Metacritic for Tideland which is pretty positive as far as user submitted reviews go, but is one of the worst movies ever if you were to go off the critics reviews. The problem is, critics are usually right, and the audience usually isn't. This is because critics have studied film, often went to film school, and can point out just exactly how a film fails. That being said, Gilliam is the rare exception, and I do believe it is because of that ineffable quality about him and his directorial style. Maybe it's because I grew up with it, but "Time Bandits" is still one of my favorite films of all time. "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" was not really very well made, but it's still distinctly Gilliamesque, and it actually works around the death of Heath Ledger very adroitly. "Zero Theroem" was also a bit disappointing, but it's still at least different, not your usual Hollywood schlock. "Brazil" was Gilliam par excellence; I am hopeful his take on Quixote is good, but even if it isn't, it will almost definitely be interesting.
    - 7y ago
RobertKerans 7y ago
I love Gilliam films, and I'll watch anything he does, but I think this a stretch: he's _very_ patchy. No-one ever accuses him of not being interesting, of not being full of ideas, not having a unique vision. It's just that those ideas are so rarely fully realised, and his films tend to ramble. They often feel incomplete, more surface than depth, gossamer. As I say, I love his films and I'd happily watch almost anything he's done, but I don't know how much of that is down to me being enamoured of what he obviously tries to achieve. I just can't see how the critics are wrong most of the time w/r/t his films, and to me those bad reviews have generally come across as respectfully disappointed more than anything else.
- malloryerik 7y ago
  When they aren't at their best, sitting through his films can feel like watching some captivating person shoot arrows at the moon.
  - RobertKerans 7y ago
    Yes, definitely, thats a nice description. He tends to miss quite a bit, and can be a quite frustrating experience just willing those arrows to hit.