5 ms·

May you elaborate?

by neves 8y ago

May you elaborate?

monocasa 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
    The Metacritic scores for the Fisher King and 12 Monkeys is still well under the user reviews.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- npsimons 8y 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.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    It was only the domestic critics who shat on it so hard. It did well both critically and financially in the international markets.
  - pmoriarty 8y ago
    I enjoyed the beginning of Zero Theorem, but the movie tanked after the love interest and super annoying whiz kid showed up.
  - WorldMaker 8y ago
    Also, Tideland is a weird example to use because it is so intentionally awful. It's on the list of films such as Requiem for a Dream that I'm glad I watched but somehow doubt I will ever watch a second time. A lot of the critics are right about Tideland that it is an awful, miserable experience to watch but many of those low "number" reviews also suggest seeing it or experiencing it for yourself, because that's also the art to it, the subjective experience. (Which is why review scores are useless metrics because art is subjective and averaging a bunch of subjective numbers together doesn't do anything but give you a random number. Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are interesting random numbers, but they can't actually tell you if the art was good or not.)
- pmoriarty 8y ago
  I'm a big Gilliam fan, but in my opinion his movies have gotten worse and worse since Time Bandits, Brazil, 12 Monkeys, and The Fisher King. There's something of his charming sensibility in even the worst of his films, and they're worth watching for die-hard Gilliam fans like myself, but even the best of his later films (like the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus) are a pale shadow of the brilliance of his early output.
- neves 8y ago
  > 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. Probably I say this about any superhero movie :-)
- goto11 8y ago
  Gilliam commented on this notion in an interview. He said Hollywood does not carry grudges because Hollywood doesn't have any memory. After the debacle of Brazil and the economical disaster of Münchhausen, many wondered if he would ever be able to make a movie again. But Hollywood didn't care one bit about all that as long as it seemed like the next movie would make a profit, as was the case with Fisher King and 12 Monkeys. The mixed reviews is not surprising for a director who is highly original but not so strong in (or doesn't care about) traditional storytelling virtues like dramatic curve and relatable characters. His movies are divisive. You really think reviewers are afraid to give a Gilliam movie a positive review? Maybe they just don't like them all that much.

May you elaborate?

by neves 8y ago

May you elaborate?

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 8y 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 8y ago
  The Metacritic scores for the Fisher King and 12 Monkeys is still well under the user reviews.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
npsimons 8y 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.
- monocasa 8y ago
  It was only the domestic critics who shat on it so hard. It did well both critically and financially in the international markets.
- pmoriarty 8y ago
  I enjoyed the beginning of Zero Theorem, but the movie tanked after the love interest and super annoying whiz kid showed up.
- WorldMaker 8y ago
  Also, Tideland is a weird example to use because it is so intentionally awful. It's on the list of films such as Requiem for a Dream that I'm glad I watched but somehow doubt I will ever watch a second time. A lot of the critics are right about Tideland that it is an awful, miserable experience to watch but many of those low "number" reviews also suggest seeing it or experiencing it for yourself, because that's also the art to it, the subjective experience. (Which is why review scores are useless metrics because art is subjective and averaging a bunch of subjective numbers together doesn't do anything but give you a random number. Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are interesting random numbers, but they can't actually tell you if the art was good or not.)
pmoriarty 8y ago
I'm a big Gilliam fan, but in my opinion his movies have gotten worse and worse since Time Bandits, Brazil, 12 Monkeys, and The Fisher King. There's something of his charming sensibility in even the worst of his films, and they're worth watching for die-hard Gilliam fans like myself, but even the best of his later films (like the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus) are a pale shadow of the brilliance of his early output.
neves 8y ago
> 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. Probably I say this about any superhero movie :-)
goto11 8y ago
Gilliam commented on this notion in an interview. He said Hollywood does not carry grudges because Hollywood doesn't have any memory. After the debacle of Brazil and the economical disaster of Münchhausen, many wondered if he would ever be able to make a movie again. But Hollywood didn't care one bit about all that as long as it seemed like the next movie would make a profit, as was the case with Fisher King and 12 Monkeys. The mixed reviews is not surprising for a director who is highly original but not so strong in (or doesn't care about) traditional storytelling virtues like dramatic curve and relatable characters. His movies are divisive. You really think reviewers are afraid to give a Gilliam movie a positive review? Maybe they just don't like them all that much.