Lost a little respect for Rushdie and Gilliam from this. Depressing to see them spewing the same ignorance toward A.I. as typical inbred trolls at IMDB.
@Druffmaul I agree with you. What jealous little pigs! Maybe the next time any film Gilliam does that makes over $100 million he will have room to talk.
@dialingfordonuts The key word here is "assume". We can certainly assume that the mothership will send Roy back to Earth someday, but that doesn't mean it will. What kind of argument is that, suggesting that there's no ambiguity in CEOT3K's ending? That's like saying "2001" isn't ambiguous because Dave Bowman's fate was later revealed in "2010".
Anyway, I suspect Gilliam is only railing on CEOT3K because he's been provoked by some unknown, bad blood between him and Spielberg.
@squeak63 Oh please. Kubrick was highly concerned with audience response and always was. What makes the film Art is how it ends up not what the intention was.
I thought kids were already scared enough of ET. I don’t think he needed “scary eyes.” In regards to AI, it is not uncommon to film an ending and decide to cut it out in the editing process. Kubrick may have done that.
For sheer spectacle and wonder, Spielberg is hard to beat. Gilliam should get over it. It's also nice to see Rushdie, - an author I love, - defend E.T and not be intellectually snobbish about it.
Major motion picture industry leaders are so unimaginative and so cynical of its viewers. "We need to see inside the mothership!" Do we really, though? It's much more mysterious and skillfully made without a blatant visual representation of the unknown. That's why it should stay THE UNKNOWN. Who knows? Maybe some people wanted to see the inside and it reeled in lots of bucks for the reissue, but Spielberg didn't like it. Again, the industry just out to make money.
Editor's Note: It's strange how Gilliam thinks CEOT3K simply "ends with an answer", and nothing more. Yes, we get to see what the aliens look like. But then again, we got to see what the StarChild looked like in "2001", too. By Gilliam's logic, Kubrick would have also been guilty of "ending with an answer."
We don't know where the mothership will take Roy -- any more than we know what will become of Dave after his StarChild transformation. Don't *both* movies actually end with questions?
@adamzanzie Someone of Gilliam's age would remember what an enigma 2001 was at the time. People were flummoxed. And the ending - psychedelic joyride, futuro-Victorian apartment, space embryo - was nearly a cinematic non-sequitur. Everyone argued about it, while Kubrick played coy. Clarke's novelization explained, but wasn't considered definitive.
"Keys" to its meaning were as numerous as the people proposing them.
wikipedia /wiki/Interpretations_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey
-cont- CE3K was more conventional fare. We could assume Roy would be taken aboard for grand adventures and would be deposited back to the mountaintop. And he was, in a crescendo of symphonic celestial uplift.
Gilliam didn't object to showing aliens, he liked the mantid critter. But, not the twee aliens and Roy's happy bon voyage.
2001 is a headfuck. Experience over exposition. CE3K is a fine film, but more orthodox, and so not Gilliam's cuppa.
@adamzanzie The difference between Kubrick and Spielberg is that Kubrick could do films that no other filmmaker could and was much more intelligent than the audience, unlike Spielberg whom has said himself that he prefers to be the audience. He makes happy/feel-good family films that end with an answer. Kubrick made films that not only ended with unpredictable possibilities but also with hidden meaning. His films actually meant something--whereas Spielberg makes films to entertain the audience.
@Transformers2themax I don't seem to recall The Sugarland Express, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, A.I. and Munich as being "happy/feel good family films that end with an answer."
@adamzanzie Schindler's List ends with a happy ending, A.I. is incredibly flawed, and Saving Private Ryan, accurate for the first 24 minutes and well-shot as it is, is subtle anti-German pro-American propaganda...All of his films have to end with a happy ending; thus, making them happy/feel good movies.
@Transformers2themax Schindler's List ends with Schindler broke and divorced. Saving Private Ryan is hardly "anti-German" when it acknowledges the horrors of killing unarmed German POWs at D-Day. How is A.I. flawed? And you haven't commented yet on The Sugarland Express Empire of the Sun or Munich's sad conclusions.
And if you wanna talk Kubrick's endings, I could bring up the tearful song in Paths of Glory, and Bill's bittersweet peace with Alice in Eyes Wide Shut, too.
@adamzanzie Hardly anti-German?! Lol! Do you, along with the rest of the general public, not know anything about the German military at that time? They're portrayed as bald, greasy cowards with an intelligence that makes Forrest Gump look like Beethoven. There are no "horrors of killing unarmed German POWs" portrayed--just a bumbling imbecile walkin' around with a blindfold on. Platoon and Full Metal Jacket actually portray the horrors of war, unlike that piece of Jewish Hollywood propaganda.
b) Saving Private Ryan depicts the murder of the POWs at D-Day (their executions witnessed by Miller) as a terrible, unjust atrocity.
c) Kubrick never said he "disliked" Eyes Wide Shut. But the fact that you think Eyes Wide Shut and Barry Lyndon are "bad movies" makes me wonder why I am even continuing this fruitless discussion with you.
@adamzanzie Plus, Paths of Glory is an anti-war film and one of Kubrick's first films--whereas Eyes Wide Shut was his very last, which Kubrick even disliked himself. Kubrick, like a lot of filmmakers, made some bad films (Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut), but he was an artist overall--and even those films still could be artistic..Spielberg is a good entertainment filmmaker; he's a good filmmaker, but he is no artist. And he's also very anti-German.
I'm disappointed that Gilliam's half-baked expounding on how Spielberg's films could've been better is being taken seriously. Does Gilliam honestly think all of his own films end with a question? Or should? Does a movie need to be ambiguous in order to be challenging? Is there necessarily more virtue in a child learning to love and not fear a creature if it's uglier? There are films of Gilliam's that I like and a few I even love, but he has a pompous, pseudointellectual chip on his shoulder.
I understand Gilliam's discourse with Spielberg, I really do. But at the same time, I think he's overly critical. Spielberg makes, and is readily willing to admit that he makes entertaining films of the highest quality. They sell to a large audience, and a large audience reciprocates with love and affection for quality storytelling. As a consequence, not all of his films are "challenging," but he remains a unique filmmaker who can tell good stories well on a large budget.
I don't understand how Spielberg can really think ET isn't cute. He has HUGE eyes. One of the best things to know about human evolutionary biology is that we find creatures with large eyes cute, because babies have large eyes relative to their faces. Think of puppies and cartoon characters etc. Big eyes.
Spielberg can't win. I remember when Minority Report came out, reading several different reviews for the film. One review made a big deal out of the fact that the 20th Century architecture looked out of place in a futuristic film. Another review made the opposite observation, saying that there wasn’t enough 20th Century architecture in a film that’s set in the late 21st Century. All Spielberg’s films are going to have something to love and something to hate in them.
I hate Spielberg as all the cinematic treacle he spews out, but Terry Gilliam should not throw stones. Brazil is probably the only great movie he's made and everything afterwards has been maginal at best. Just watch Lost In La Mancha and you'll see that Gilliam is his own worst enemy and cannot rein in his excesses. The last fairly good film was Fisher King. Tideland was stunningly bad, I skipped Brothers Grimm, and Dr. Pernasus was only watchable for Tom Waits .
Terry who!??? I dont know who he hell he is.... no body knows Terry.... unlike Spielberg... he is a genius period, everywhere you go people know him .Terry is an insecure jealous bastard ...
@Indigilmer Terry Gilliam started off as the animator for Monty Python, creating the weird cut-out animations seen in Flying Circus. After Monty Python split, Gilliam went to direct films like Brazil, Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, Heath Ledger's final film.
So it was not an accident that E.T. was scary to me instead of "cute" as the critics are always regurgitating it was supposed to be? Interesting. Because that thing IS ugly.
@scavengedfantasyname You may not know or care but The Man Booker Prize is specifically given to hacks. It is sort of like the The Razzie Awards for literature. Just here to inform.
I'll take half of Spielberg's output, and three quarters of Gilliam's. They're both pretty solid, and both stuck in their own realities. I'll take John Carpenter for an american director most every time.
Gilliam and Rushdie are pretentious, politicising idiots. It's such a con, the way they throw snark at a pandering audience. Spielberg may be a famous showman, but he knows exactly what he wants to say in his movies without ticking off some arthouse agenda, an agenda that these two seem to want to push in people's faces and make as though it seems important. Spielberg's movies are genuinesly enrishing artistic works. Gilliam's are messy, incoherent, nihilistic rubbish.
Gilliam is a prick. I would choose a Spielberg movie any day over any of his films. He is just being pretentious, trying to criticize the happy ending. It just depends what sort of movies being made - of course 2001 couldn't have ended with an answer, but at the same time I don't think Close Encounters could have ended without one
Nobody has to agree with Gilliam or Rushdie, but I think it's sad that some people can't even accept their opinions. "Oh he's just a hater, oh his movies make no money," this is the problem with the internet. Whenever anyone says something interesting, they are pilloried for it.
Gilliam just comes off completely bitter, like a hater, and repeats himself over and over about how he believes a film should ask questions. *rolls eyes*
You are correct.Spielberg liked Brazil but I believed judged it a great "art house" film which is what Sid Sheinburg at Universal thought as well. I had not known that the two were not speaking anymore..if this is true! Gilliam's attitude has resulted in alienation from the Hollywood film companies as is evident by his last few films.I like Parnassus,but not too many people know of it...other than its Heath
I've always been a big Gilliam fan and I think the horrors he had with Brazil and Universal Pictures meddling with it have haunted him.Also,when he was in Monty Python in the late 60s/early 70s,the BBC pretty much gave Terry and the group freedom to do what they wanted in the show creation.
@bmet47 Actually, I've heard a story that Gilliam even asked for Spielberg's input on "Brazil" and that Spielberg supported his cut. This is what has always made the falling-out between them look pretty odd. It's a shame, too, since they're both wonderful filmmakers.
@sudsy70 Schindler's List, Minority Report, Jurassic Park, Catch Me if You Can, Munich, Saving Private Ryan? and you're going to put DUEL on the top? Why? because you don't get to see the driver? come on.
And the idea of humans being replaced by a silicon based civilization is totally a Kubrickian concept. You might have problems with Spielberg's EXECUTION of the concept, but saying the ending is somehow "not Kubrick" is ridiculous.
To be fair, Spielberg's (and most of the audience and Studio execs') conception of "Grotesque" and "Off putting" is no doubt VASTLY different that Gilliam's.
That's one of the reasons Speilberg is the most successful modern filmaker who could right his own check on any project he wanted and Gilliam has to scrape and hustle to make even the most modestly budgeted feature.
My problem with the ending of "A.I." wasn't so much where it ended or should have ended, but that too much was explained by the supermechas. It was already ironic for David, who wanted to be real, to want them to basically artificially recreate his mother. After his dramatic "now you can bring her back!" statement with the lock of hair from Teddy, they should have just skipped the exposition about her lasting only a day.
If Spielberg cares so much about Close Encounters and felt strongly about not showing inside the ship, why did he do it? An artist, let alone one with his financial clout, should not compramise his soul. Hmmm disagree with Gilliam on ET and agree with him a bit. ET was clearly designed to be likeable and cute, but Gilliam is wrong to be critical, because it is clearly ment to be a kids film. The AI objections are old news by now. Most agree that the ending is the best part of the film.
hahha I just realized that is THE Salman Rushdie! I never realized how he looked before lol and is that a Brit accent? He's a wonderful wonderful author.
And Rushdie? Ooh, a billion muslims want you dead and suddenly you're an artist. Despite its controversy, The Satanic Verses was shite.
mccinaz 1 month ago
Really? Who cares what Terry Gilliam thinks of Spielberg. I can't remember the last movie that Gilliam did that was any good.
mccinaz 1 month ago
Lost a little respect for Rushdie and Gilliam from this. Depressing to see them spewing the same ignorance toward A.I. as typical inbred trolls at IMDB.
Druffmaul 2 months ago
@Druffmaul I agree with you. What jealous little pigs! Maybe the next time any film Gilliam does that makes over $100 million he will have room to talk.
mccinaz 1 month ago
@Druffmaul Most ignorant people don't get A.I. The majority of the American public doesn't like anything they have to think about.
mccinaz 1 month ago
What a couple of jerks.
bryanlangdo 3 months ago
@dialingfordonuts The key word here is "assume". We can certainly assume that the mothership will send Roy back to Earth someday, but that doesn't mean it will. What kind of argument is that, suggesting that there's no ambiguity in CEOT3K's ending? That's like saying "2001" isn't ambiguous because Dave Bowman's fate was later revealed in "2010".
Anyway, I suspect Gilliam is only railing on CEOT3K because he's been provoked by some unknown, bad blood between him and Spielberg.
adamzanzie 4 months ago
The A.I. comment is really retarded.
1 : If you look at the earliest concept arts made for the film, they include the "2000 years later" ending
2 : Kubrick was spielberg's friend and for a long time wanted him to direct it
Movie's way better than what Gilliam has been doing for the last ten years by the way.
CptSpauIding 4 months ago
these critics are clueless!!!!!! and Spielberg is the greatest of all time!
RazzaBeeDaSilva 4 months ago
Gilliam's dead-on about the ending to A.I.
I remember feeling the same way walking out of the theatre!
jhum101 5 months ago
ignorant retards bashing steven spielberg for fulfilling kubricks last vision.
heavytom89 5 months ago
Fuck Salman Rushdie.
As for Terry Gillian I don't understand and am disappointed by his reaction.
Augurae 5 months ago
@squeak63 Oh please. Kubrick was highly concerned with audience response and always was. What makes the film Art is how it ends up not what the intention was.
Tolstoy111 5 months ago
I thought kids were already scared enough of ET. I don’t think he needed “scary eyes.” In regards to AI, it is not uncommon to film an ending and decide to cut it out in the editing process. Kubrick may have done that.
kamdan2011 5 months ago
Comment removed
kamdan2011 5 months ago
For sheer spectacle and wonder, Spielberg is hard to beat. Gilliam should get over it. It's also nice to see Rushdie, - an author I love, - defend E.T and not be intellectually snobbish about it.
TheDensley7 5 months ago
Major motion picture industry leaders are so unimaginative and so cynical of its viewers. "We need to see inside the mothership!" Do we really, though? It's much more mysterious and skillfully made without a blatant visual representation of the unknown. That's why it should stay THE UNKNOWN. Who knows? Maybe some people wanted to see the inside and it reeled in lots of bucks for the reissue, but Spielberg didn't like it. Again, the industry just out to make money.
FilmsByFerguson 5 months ago
Editor's Note: It's strange how Gilliam thinks CEOT3K simply "ends with an answer", and nothing more. Yes, we get to see what the aliens look like. But then again, we got to see what the StarChild looked like in "2001", too. By Gilliam's logic, Kubrick would have also been guilty of "ending with an answer."
We don't know where the mothership will take Roy -- any more than we know what will become of Dave after his StarChild transformation. Don't *both* movies actually end with questions?
adamzanzie 5 months ago 5
@adamzanzie Someone of Gilliam's age would remember what an enigma 2001 was at the time. People were flummoxed. And the ending - psychedelic joyride, futuro-Victorian apartment, space embryo - was nearly a cinematic non-sequitur. Everyone argued about it, while Kubrick played coy. Clarke's novelization explained, but wasn't considered definitive.
"Keys" to its meaning were as numerous as the people proposing them.
wikipedia /wiki/Interpretations_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey
dialingfordonuts 4 months ago
-cont- CE3K was more conventional fare. We could assume Roy would be taken aboard for grand adventures and would be deposited back to the mountaintop. And he was, in a crescendo of symphonic celestial uplift.
Gilliam didn't object to showing aliens, he liked the mantid critter. But, not the twee aliens and Roy's happy bon voyage.
2001 is a headfuck. Experience over exposition. CE3K is a fine film, but more orthodox, and so not Gilliam's cuppa.
dialingfordonuts 4 months ago
@adamzanzie The difference between Kubrick and Spielberg is that Kubrick could do films that no other filmmaker could and was much more intelligent than the audience, unlike Spielberg whom has said himself that he prefers to be the audience. He makes happy/feel-good family films that end with an answer. Kubrick made films that not only ended with unpredictable possibilities but also with hidden meaning. His films actually meant something--whereas Spielberg makes films to entertain the audience.
Transformers2themax 2 weeks ago
@Transformers2themax I don't seem to recall The Sugarland Express, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, A.I. and Munich as being "happy/feel good family films that end with an answer."
adamzanzie 1 week ago
@adamzanzie Schindler's List ends with a happy ending, A.I. is incredibly flawed, and Saving Private Ryan, accurate for the first 24 minutes and well-shot as it is, is subtle anti-German pro-American propaganda...All of his films have to end with a happy ending; thus, making them happy/feel good movies.
Transformers2themax 1 week ago
@Transformers2themax Schindler's List ends with Schindler broke and divorced. Saving Private Ryan is hardly "anti-German" when it acknowledges the horrors of killing unarmed German POWs at D-Day. How is A.I. flawed? And you haven't commented yet on The Sugarland Express Empire of the Sun or Munich's sad conclusions.
And if you wanna talk Kubrick's endings, I could bring up the tearful song in Paths of Glory, and Bill's bittersweet peace with Alice in Eyes Wide Shut, too.
adamzanzie 1 week ago
@adamzanzie Hardly anti-German?! Lol! Do you, along with the rest of the general public, not know anything about the German military at that time? They're portrayed as bald, greasy cowards with an intelligence that makes Forrest Gump look like Beethoven. There are no "horrors of killing unarmed German POWs" portrayed--just a bumbling imbecile walkin' around with a blindfold on. Platoon and Full Metal Jacket actually portray the horrors of war, unlike that piece of Jewish Hollywood propaganda.
Transformers2themax 1 week ago
@Transformers2themax a) The hero of Schindler's List was a German.
b) Saving Private Ryan depicts the murder of the POWs at D-Day (their executions witnessed by Miller) as a terrible, unjust atrocity.
c) Kubrick never said he "disliked" Eyes Wide Shut. But the fact that you think Eyes Wide Shut and Barry Lyndon are "bad movies" makes me wonder why I am even continuing this fruitless discussion with you.
d) "Jewish Hollywood propaganda"? I rest my case.
adamzanzie 1 week ago
Comment removed
Transformers2themax 1 week ago
@adamzanzie Plus, Paths of Glory is an anti-war film and one of Kubrick's first films--whereas Eyes Wide Shut was his very last, which Kubrick even disliked himself. Kubrick, like a lot of filmmakers, made some bad films (Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut), but he was an artist overall--and even those films still could be artistic..Spielberg is a good entertainment filmmaker; he's a good filmmaker, but he is no artist. And he's also very anti-German.
Transformers2themax 1 week ago
I'm disappointed that Gilliam's half-baked expounding on how Spielberg's films could've been better is being taken seriously. Does Gilliam honestly think all of his own films end with a question? Or should? Does a movie need to be ambiguous in order to be challenging? Is there necessarily more virtue in a child learning to love and not fear a creature if it's uglier? There are films of Gilliam's that I like and a few I even love, but he has a pompous, pseudointellectual chip on his shoulder.
FranksDescendant 6 months ago 3
I agree with them
almighty1984 6 months ago
I understand Gilliam's discourse with Spielberg, I really do. But at the same time, I think he's overly critical. Spielberg makes, and is readily willing to admit that he makes entertaining films of the highest quality. They sell to a large audience, and a large audience reciprocates with love and affection for quality storytelling. As a consequence, not all of his films are "challenging," but he remains a unique filmmaker who can tell good stories well on a large budget.
chimpiki 6 months ago
I don't understand how Spielberg can really think ET isn't cute. He has HUGE eyes. One of the best things to know about human evolutionary biology is that we find creatures with large eyes cute, because babies have large eyes relative to their faces. Think of puppies and cartoon characters etc. Big eyes.
tearosefurymarie 6 months ago
Spielberg can't win. I remember when Minority Report came out, reading several different reviews for the film. One review made a big deal out of the fact that the 20th Century architecture looked out of place in a futuristic film. Another review made the opposite observation, saying that there wasn’t enough 20th Century architecture in a film that’s set in the late 21st Century. All Spielberg’s films are going to have something to love and something to hate in them.
neonatalpenguin 6 months ago
gilliam was pretty brutal, maybe slightly envious of spielberg's mainstream appeal?
SilverShamrock71 6 months ago
speilberg, undeniably an amazingly skilled director, but unfortunately artistically a sell out...
SilverShamrock71 6 months ago
@SilverShamrock71 What are you talking about?
Tolstoy111 5 months ago
@Tolstoy111 spielberg FFS
SilverShamrock71 5 months ago
@SilverShamrock71 I mean how is he an artistic sell out?
Tolstoy111 5 months ago
@Tolstoy111 watch the video above, you don't have to agree, formulate your own opinion...
SilverShamrock71 5 months ago
@SilverShamrock71 I did. All of Gilliam's assertions are blatantly misinformed. It's not opinion.
Tolstoy111 5 months ago
Where are those interview pieces with Gilliam taken from?
MeatTycoonDevious 6 months ago
very manipulative editing
sulfurousstench 6 months ago
I hate Spielberg as all the cinematic treacle he spews out, but Terry Gilliam should not throw stones. Brazil is probably the only great movie he's made and everything afterwards has been maginal at best. Just watch Lost In La Mancha and you'll see that Gilliam is his own worst enemy and cannot rein in his excesses. The last fairly good film was Fisher King. Tideland was stunningly bad, I skipped Brothers Grimm, and Dr. Pernasus was only watchable for Tom Waits .
madahad9 6 months ago
@madahad9
Are you sure you're not confusing Lost in La Mancha with Hearts of Darkness?
LiLM shows a man flattened under a storm of calamities, not a director out of control.
dialingfordonuts 4 months ago
Spielberg may not be the most thought provoking director, but he definitely creates the most emotion and excitement of any film maker.
extereo 6 months ago 12
I have a question for Mr. Gilliam....What the fuck have you done? Your Honor I rest my case....
UFOSPACE1999 6 months ago
Terry who!??? I dont know who he hell he is.... no body knows Terry.... unlike Spielberg... he is a genius period, everywhere you go people know him .Terry is an insecure jealous bastard ...
Indigilmer 6 months ago
@Indigilmer Terry Gilliam started off as the animator for Monty Python, creating the weird cut-out animations seen in Flying Circus. After Monty Python split, Gilliam went to direct films like Brazil, Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, Heath Ledger's final film.
AdamMitchyCat 6 months ago
So it was not an accident that E.T. was scary to me instead of "cute" as the critics are always regurgitating it was supposed to be? Interesting. Because that thing IS ugly.
scavengedfantasyname 6 months ago
Salman Rushdie is a bigger hack than Spielberg. But at least Spielberg is a talented hack. Rushdie is only popular for pissing off Muslims.
DenouementFilms 7 months ago
@DenouementFilms
You don't get a Booker prize for being a hack. Ok, now you'll say so, but excuse me if I don't care.
scavengedfantasyname 6 months ago
@scavengedfantasyname You may not know or care but The Man Booker Prize is specifically given to hacks. It is sort of like the The Razzie Awards for literature. Just here to inform.
DenouementFilms 6 months ago
Comment removed
8825TWO 7 months ago
Gilliam sucks
ThorFan4Life 7 months ago
I'll take half of Spielberg's output, and three quarters of Gilliam's. They're both pretty solid, and both stuck in their own realities. I'll take John Carpenter for an american director most every time.
genreslur 7 months ago
Gilliam and Rushdie are pretentious, politicising idiots. It's such a con, the way they throw snark at a pandering audience. Spielberg may be a famous showman, but he knows exactly what he wants to say in his movies without ticking off some arthouse agenda, an agenda that these two seem to want to push in people's faces and make as though it seems important. Spielberg's movies are genuinesly enrishing artistic works. Gilliam's are messy, incoherent, nihilistic rubbish.
mastertheben 7 months ago
terry shits all over speilberg.
ThaSubzstance 7 months ago
Gilliam is a prick. I would choose a Spielberg movie any day over any of his films. He is just being pretentious, trying to criticize the happy ending. It just depends what sort of movies being made - of course 2001 couldn't have ended with an answer, but at the same time I don't think Close Encounters could have ended without one
littlepro22 7 months ago 2
I really enjoyed this video, by the way. You gave both sides an opportunity to express themselves. I just wish more people would grow up.
TulseLuper 7 months ago
Nobody has to agree with Gilliam or Rushdie, but I think it's sad that some people can't even accept their opinions. "Oh he's just a hater, oh his movies make no money," this is the problem with the internet. Whenever anyone says something interesting, they are pilloried for it.
TulseLuper 7 months ago
Comment removed
8825TWO 7 months ago
Gilliam just comes off completely bitter, like a hater, and repeats himself over and over about how he believes a film should ask questions. *rolls eyes*
iamthetank44 8 months ago
well, at least monty python and the holy grail was a quality piece of film...
sflan93 8 months ago
You are correct.Spielberg liked Brazil but I believed judged it a great "art house" film which is what Sid Sheinburg at Universal thought as well. I had not known that the two were not speaking anymore..if this is true! Gilliam's attitude has resulted in alienation from the Hollywood film companies as is evident by his last few films.I like Parnassus,but not too many people know of it...other than its Heath
legder's last film.
bmet47 9 months ago
I've always been a big Gilliam fan and I think the horrors he had with Brazil and Universal Pictures meddling with it have haunted him.Also,when he was in Monty Python in the late 60s/early 70s,the BBC pretty much gave Terry and the group freedom to do what they wanted in the show creation.
bmet47 9 months ago
@bmet47 Actually, I've heard a story that Gilliam even asked for Spielberg's input on "Brazil" and that Spielberg supported his cut. This is what has always made the falling-out between them look pretty odd. It's a shame, too, since they're both wonderful filmmakers.
adamzanzie 9 months ago 4
Comment removed
8825TWO 9 months ago
@sudsy70 Schindler's List, Minority Report, Jurassic Park, Catch Me if You Can, Munich, Saving Private Ryan? and you're going to put DUEL on the top? Why? because you don't get to see the driver? come on.
SockMonkey007 9 months ago
Comment removed
8825TWO 9 months ago
And the idea of humans being replaced by a silicon based civilization is totally a Kubrickian concept. You might have problems with Spielberg's EXECUTION of the concept, but saying the ending is somehow "not Kubrick" is ridiculous.
archer1949 10 months ago
To be fair, Spielberg's (and most of the audience and Studio execs') conception of "Grotesque" and "Off putting" is no doubt VASTLY different that Gilliam's.
That's one of the reasons Speilberg is the most successful modern filmaker who could right his own check on any project he wanted and Gilliam has to scrape and hustle to make even the most modestly budgeted feature.
archer1949 10 months ago
My problem with the ending of "A.I." wasn't so much where it ended or should have ended, but that too much was explained by the supermechas. It was already ironic for David, who wanted to be real, to want them to basically artificially recreate his mother. After his dramatic "now you can bring her back!" statement with the lock of hair from Teddy, they should have just skipped the exposition about her lasting only a day.
FarleyTube 10 months ago
Comment removed
8825TWO 10 months ago
yeah nice one gilliam.. not!
saundersco 10 months ago
Lol, this is coming from the guy who hasn't made a good film in 10 years!
MountDoomPictures 10 months ago
Gilliam is somewhat of a dick... He himself isn't all that wonderful a filmmaker (Brazil and Fear and Loathing are the only films of his I like)
blablaidontcarewhour 10 months ago
If Spielberg cares so much about Close Encounters and felt strongly about not showing inside the ship, why did he do it? An artist, let alone one with his financial clout, should not compramise his soul. Hmmm disagree with Gilliam on ET and agree with him a bit. ET was clearly designed to be likeable and cute, but Gilliam is wrong to be critical, because it is clearly ment to be a kids film. The AI objections are old news by now. Most agree that the ending is the best part of the film.
JinSinKim 10 months ago
hahha I just realized that is THE Salman Rushdie! I never realized how he looked before lol and is that a Brit accent? He's a wonderful wonderful author.
JinSinKim 10 months ago
Comment removed
gunranger 10 months ago