Ok, so recently Terry Gilliam made a comment something to the effect of: Steven Spielberg isn’t a very good director, he just makes predictable and formulaic movies for the masses complete with happy endings.
Now, I LIKE Terry Gilliam (at least, his work) but he’s clearly always been a little bit insane (watch ‘Flying Circus’…no, he wasn’t on drugs) which tends to add to his work sometimes, but it makes his serious commentary, well at least in this case, suck.
Spielberg’s ‘Minority Report’ (based on a Philip K. Dick novel, I know, but Gilliam said “director”, not “writer” or “complete comptroller”) is brilliant.
Introducing Gilliam to that equation would have gone pretty much like the Python equation: he hovers behind MUCH more talented people (Idle, Cleese especially) and chimes in with the occasional bit of fun nonsense.
In order for Spielberg/Gilliam ‘Minority Report’ to have been as good, Spielberg would have had to be in charge of 98 percent of it, and Gilliam the other 2.
1 percent of that would be his inspired creativity that was the equal of Spielberg’s (I’d say 98:1 is a fair ratio of talent) and the other 1 percent would be the same as from Python: nonsense, inane/insane surreal references given meaning only by those that adore French cinema (see Python’s ‘French Film Sketch’) and, of course, a confusing ending. In fact, the ending is the ONLY thing Gilliam could really improve…he’d get his 2 percent there. Maybe.
-Puppy >.< Yip!