TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

jllewell I loved this film so much - Dawn Steel (CEO at Columbia) was busy trying to bury it - in a deadly cocktail of politics and an imminent sale of Columbia.Gilliam got trashed for going over budget, when the project had initially begun for the amount he spent.Hollywood is a jackass, as is proved by so many of these projects. This film has lasted for years because it's brilliant - anything intelligent is seen as not commercially viable at Hollywood, though they're slightly better than they used to be. Small minds in charge of great ones. History repeats itself.Hollywood chase the dollar, but end up losing more money than they think they've gained. Try to dumb it down for the lowest common denominator, and lose money spending audiences. History repeats itself.This film is excellent. It invaded my life, like Time Bandits and Brazil (Go Terry!). I have a teddy bear who I sent to my then fiancé, on the other side of the world, and he brought the teddy back with him. My husband and I call that teddy 'Berthold'. And we always make jokes about 'Beautiful Ladies!' when we see twiglet starlets.I don't know why anyone would say this film was weird - have you had no flights of fancy? No imagination at all? It's a great little fairy tale, in every sense; truth, lies, and everything in between. Remember your philosophy! What is real? Does it matter? I have often wished to separate my head from my body - I enjoyed that sequence, sooo much.Beautifully made, wonderfully madcap - I adored everything about it. So did my family. But then, we're all liars...

WakenPayne This is an odd movie. It's clear right from the start that this is not a logical story and almost never for a second tries to tell you otherwise. With that said, while this might put people off... I quite enjoyed it. A theater is acting out the adventures of a Baron that... To say they're exaggerated looks to be an understatement and the real Baron walks in to correct it by making the stories even weirder. However Turks invade the town and he, along with the help of the theater manager's daughter try to get his old team back (each with unexplained super speed, strength and marksmanship) and defeat them, mainly because the baron had all his treasure after a bet. The Set design, the special effects... Wow! They really stand out as being pretty good. I have seen Sarah Polley in a few things and in here she's actually quite good. The entire cast is as well (with the kookiest performance being Robin Williams who's different levels of crazy depending on whether his head's attached). As an illogical story, this did suck me in quite a lot. If I was to name a complaint it would be around the end where they cut back to the theater, literally from that point on I was taken out of the story and never quite got back to it. The best way I can describe this is if you like stories like Alice In Wonderland or The Wizard Of Oz (I'll say specifically the book, considering it's weirder than the movie but I'll say the movie may apply as well) then this is that kind of a story.

fedor8 A movie that shows in no uncertain terms why Gilliam always did the visually interesting animations at Python, but stayed out of the writing process.Hats off to Gilliam for managing to create a visually stunning movie in the LATE 80s – a period notorious not only for awful movies (there are almost no gems from 1987-1989, from Hollywood at least), but also very ugly-looking films. It's as though every cinematographer and director from that period had been so continually high on cocaine and crack that they decided that ugliness was the new prettiness. Take a look at almost any movie from that period and then tell me it isn't far uglier than the visual standards from before it or after it.BM looks so good that a true visual fetishist such as I can enjoy the movie despite its mostly appalling and embarrassing attempts at humour. Gilliam comes from the Italian-French school of "comedy" in which a banana peel lying in wait for a foot still represents the "height" of genius and innovation. In other words, the Comedic School of Cheesy Buffoonery. Idle, the poor sap, got most of the worst lines; he must have suffered greatly having to learn and then deliver such trifles in front of a 100+ strong crew, not to mention the millions who watched him do it later on the screen. I very much doubt that spontaneous on-set laughter was a problem for Gilliam during the film's shooting; perhaps "embarrassing silence" might have been more accurate.Still, there are a few very funny moments – a handful only, admittedly – that spring out of nowhere, and by "nowhere" I mean the dry laugh-less desert that Gilliam's weak dialogue provides, which is why every good gag comes almost as a shock. For example, Pryce's suggestion to the Turkish sultan that they should surrender because "we surrendered the last time, so it's your turn". Also, Pryce's comment that France is out of virgins – after the sultan asks for some.Which brings me to the mystery of who Gilliam intended this movie for: kids or adults? On the one hand there are just so many dumb and vapid visual gags and pathetic one-liners that only truly un-gifted kids can enjoy; on the other hand we have Robin Williams talking about orgasms and Pryce mentioning virgins. Perhaps the humour was intended for dumb adults?All of Gilliam's comedies (except "Time Bandits") have a serious humour problem, because of his penchant for corny sight gags and incredibly childish quips. But the performances suffer too; Oliver Reed was never cut out for comedy, yet what chance did he have while under the guidance of Gilliam's clumsy direction (I'm talking about directing actors, not creating amazing action sequences and the like, in which Gilliam excels sometimes).The movie is up-and-down. The theater sequences look amazing but are dull content-wise. The Moon segment is fun, the volcano segment dull, and so on.TAOBM is from the part of Gilliam's career when he was still trying to come to terms with basic film-making concepts such as "staying on budget" and "curbing the zealous perfectionism in order to appease the producers and financiers". This was a good thing for the viewer, because this time-consuming and money-wasting approach results in visually striking movies, but bad for Gilliam who easily could have had his career cut short with behind-the-scenes disasters that followed "Brazil" and TAOBM every step of the way, during and after shooting. Not that it would have mattered had his career been over after this film; it was all downhill from here. "Fisher King" is an overly sentimental overrated oddity, "12 Monkeys" is visually modest and has logic holes as big as Robert Redford's empty pumpkin-head, "Fear & Loathing" is an abominable embarrassment and one of the dullest movies ever made, "The Brothers Grimm" has Matt Damon in it hence ruined, and "Tideland" is even more boring than Depp and del Toro horsing around in Vegas, not to mention utterly stupid. Only "Imaginarium" succeeded in repeating some of that visual quality he became renowned for, plus a half-decent story.I'd always wondered how such an average actress (and average-looking one as well) as Sarah Polley made it in movies. Now I know why; Gilliam hired HER (of all the thousands of possible girls) for this role. Did he think those teeth are funny? I wasn't laughing – and was laughing even less (i.e. laughing less than not laughing at all, which I know might not make sense) when watching Sarah with her even worse adult teeth in later movies. I don't like fake, glittering, white-as-a-wall Hollywood dentures, but couldn't she have gone to the dentist once?I do have to also wonder about that very strange line that the Baron throws at Sarah: "… otherwise I will knock you up!" Knock her up? Is this a clandestine message of pro-pedophilic support that Gilliam is sending to all the child-molesting perverts out there? Sarah is only 8 or 9 in this movie, and I am convinced Gilliam knew what he was doing when choosing the phrase "to knock up" instead of a plethora of other – non-sexual-innuendo – phrases that he could have chosen instead. Perhaps my suspicion would not have been aroused had Gilliam not been such a STAUNCH defender of Roman Polanski's "rights" a few years back when the matter of his extradition to the States was all over the media. But that's Gilly for ya; a flaming amoral Marxist, and proud of it.

gavin6942 An account of Baron Munchausen (John Neville)'s supposed travels and fantastical experiences with his band of misfits.Terry Gilliam is one of the strangest, yet most brilliant, directors working out there today. In this film, he completes what many call a trilogy, pointing to "Brazil" and "Time Bandits". In many ways, it suggests the later Gilliam film of "Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus".Although the film was critically well-received, it was not successful commercial, due at least in part to the studio trying to kill the production. The cast also had generally bad experiences. Said Eric Idle, "Up until Munchausen, I'd always been very smart about Terry Gilliam films. You don't ever be in them. Go and see them by all means - but to be in them, madness!!!" Sarah Polley was not happy, either, and it is any wonder she continued acting.