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

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.