Terry Gilliam’s Don Quixote film finally hits the big screen after 25 years

                                     JILL
                         Who is this war against, Sam?

                                     SAM
                         Well, terrorists of course.

                                     JILL
                         How many terrorists have you met? 
                         Actual terrorists?

                                     SAM
                         Actual. terrorists? Well... it's 
                         only my first day.

> They still are.

Or, again, rather. Everything comes around eventually.

Are you going to forget your credit cards and ATM cards too? Give up on flying? Driving new cars? Driving in non-rural areas? And good luck finding a job nowadays without a cell phone or an internet connection.

In 1985 I could fly without showing ID to anyone, including the person I bought the ticket from (back then airplane tickets were printed on paper). I could drive anywhere without my license plate being tracked by default and without having to worry about the GPS in my car (because there was no GPS). And I had a reasonable expectation of privacy, enshrined in law, in my phone calls and snail mail correspondence (there was no email). Today all of that is gone.

It's also the website of David Thorne, who is always amusing if you're looking for some vicious sarcasm: http://www.27bslash6.com/missy.html

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!

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.

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.

Probably I say this about any superhero movie :-)

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.