comment #1

AH says ...

Everyone?

comment #2

christian says ...

this is exactly what i said here a couple weeks back about the hp series: no magic.

i guess gilliam reads HE too.

i'm just sayin...

comment #3

Chad says ...

Oh, and when was the last time Gilliam actually made a good movie? Brazil was 1985. 12 Monkeys, Fisher King, Fear & Loathing, Brothers Grimm all stunk. And when has he ever had anything remotely close to a $300 mil hit? Never. Which is probably the real reason why he's NOT directing the HP movies.

comment #4

Monument says ...

Thanks Chad, I wasn't aware that those movies stunk, now I know better.

By the way, Alfonso Cuaron had never been in the vicinity of $300 million before Harry Potter, neither had Mike Newell so I'm not so sure about your logic.

comment #5

storymark says ...

I'll agree that Brothers Grimm was pretty weak, but you're just wrong on the others. Especially 12 Monkeys.

comment #6

NYCBusybody says ...

The Harry Potter books have a charm that the first two movies were lacking, yes, but I'm absolutely certain that Gilliam would have screwed them up in the opposite direction.

The basic appeal of the series is the whimsical detail of the magic world mixed with the recognizable school-year feel of a modern public school, which resonates with teens, obviously.

The third and fourth movies got this much better, but then again, they didn't have to deal with children acting in children stories, as the first two did. And Columbus proved he can make both teen fantasy wizards and gay AIDS junkies boring and broadly-drawn.

Gilliam would've tried to make them "edgy" and "interesting" in his by-now totally predictable manner. I think Cuaron and Newell did splendid jobs, both.

comment #7

Chris Molanphy says ...

Agreed on all counts, NYCBusyBody.

To my great surprise, I liked Newell's 'Potter' even a smidgen better than Cuaron's 'Potter.' Cuaron did what the series desperately needed by making the tone more mysterious and less schematic. But Newell kept that tone and made the plot easier to follow, yet richer.

The Columbus movies were indeed shite.

comment #8

CrayonPie says ...

I love Terry Gilliam! That MTV interview was wonderful.
IMHO, Twelve Monkeys was a good flick and it saddens me how much less it made than the big movie that summer...Armageddon. Now that movie really stunk! (again IMHO)

comment #9

Chris Molanphy says ...

P.S. anyone who actually wants to ENJOY the first 'Potter' movie -- in a snarky way -- should download the alternate narration track "Wizard People, Dear Reader," widely (and illegally) available as an MP3 on various torrent sites. You sync it up with the DVD of 'HP and the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone' and laugh away.

It sounds like SNL's Will Forte doing his Zell Miller impression and telling a much, much funnier story than Columbus is.

comment #10

CrayonPie says ...

i totally agree with the comments about the predictability of Gilliams irreverance. I find his movies interesting and flawed and I still love him.

comment #11

BHay says ...

Gilliam's craziness would've been very welcome in the first two Harry Potter movies - even in book form, those two are weak. They do a good job of setting up the world up, but otherwise are deadly dull. Cuaron and Newell's films are much better, but it helps that they had much stronger source material. I agree, Gilliam might bring too much baggage to the later books, but he'd be a great burst of life for those first two.

I think I remember reading that Gilliam was JK Rowling's dream choice of director before the first movie.

Oh, and as others have said, in what circles are The Fisher King and 12 Monkeys considered bad, Chad? And Fear & Loathing may be a love-or-hate film, but it's pretty well respected. Only Brothers Grim is his out-and-out weak movie.

Then again, I loved Tideland, which I seem to be in the minority with...

comment #12

le corbeau says ...

"even in book form, those two are weak"

I don't think they're weak. I think they're actually kids' books, unlike the increasingly bloated, overdramatic and quite dark and violent ones that follow. I'd no more let a child under 13 read the last few than I'd let him read The Godfather or Red Dragon.

comment #13

Gabriel says ...

I hate to be this guy, but...

"IMHO, Twelve Monkeys was a good flick and it saddens me how much less it made than the big movie that summer...Armageddon."

"12 Monkeys" came out in '95. "Armageddon" was in '98.

Were you thinking of "Apollo 13"?

comment #14

Rich S. says ...

It is kind of funny how everyone seems to be treating these books with some kind of literary reverence. They are, after all, children's books (albeit entertaining ones). Instead of constantly dumping on Chris Columbus, people should probably be happy they didn't get Super Mario Brothers or Dungeons and Dragons.

I absolutely love Gilliam. Brazil is one of my all-time favorite movies. But had he tackled HP, Sorceror's Stone would have been $100 mil. over budget and the cast would have been 18 by the time he was finished. And he probably would have tried to kill Harry off at the end.

comment #15

christian says ...

gilliam has a genuine knack for dark fantasy but a tiring need to always show kids that doom is right around the corner. he wants it both ways.

and i hate that damned fish-eye lens of his that he's got to stick up every nostril in every single fucking film.

sorry. it' monday.

comment #16

DarthCorleone says ...

That's o.k., Gabriel. I was going to be that guy, but you beat me to it. Apollo 13 was also 1995, by the way, or were you just being snarky?

On topic, I enjoyed all the Potter films (even the Columbus ones, which apparently makes me an outlier here), and I wouldn't mind seeing Gilliam take a shot at one. I also enjoyed 12 Monkeys and The Fisher King.

comment #17

Gabriel says ...

I wasn't really trying to be snarky; I figured CrayonPie mixed up Armageddon and Apollo 13...possibly because they were both set in space.

comment #18

storymark says ...

I just want to see Gilliam finally get "Good Omens" off the ground.

comment #19

DarthCorleone says ...

Gabriel: O.k., I'm a dummy. I thought you might be saying Apollo 13 just because it had a number in it and that he was mixing up Apollo 13 and 12 Monkeys as opposed to Apollo 13 and Armageddon. :- )

comment #20

Nate West says ...

Gilliam is brilliant, but he's wrong here. All of the Potter films are forgettable. They're just commercial tripe.

Doom is just around the corner, by the way. Or don't you kids read the papers?

comment #21

Josh Massey says ...

Warner blew it at first, but it has since been corrected (parts 3 and 4). And the studio's willingness to let the movies grow up with the books (letting the most recent have a PG-13, for example) shows this.

comment #22

CrayonPie says ...

Oops! OF COURSE 12 Monkeys and Armageddon werent the same year! Bruce wouldve been awfully tired. Sorry for the gross inaccuracy!

comment #23

EDouglas says ...

After seeing Tideland, I wouldn't let Gilliam anywhere near the Potter kids. I still think M. Night Shyamalan would make a good HP movie.

comment #24

LFF says ...

OK, when did it become acceptable to say harry potter 4 was good? it was terrible! The first reel is incoherant, the pacing is bad throughout, gleeson is a pale shadow of what oldman did in the third one, the end credits last like 15 minutes. guh. what a POS. The first two aren't bad or good; they are just colorless adaptations. Gilliam's got that right.

comment #25

Dixon Steele says ...

I'm usually a Gilliam fan, but after the disaster known as THE BROTHERS GRIMM, he's in no position to criticize.

I heard the BG script was great, but the resulting film was a disaster. Terry G. has got to take some responsibilty for it, no?

I've loved some of his films, but after Grimm & Tideland, he shouldn't be so quick to throw stones.

Still, I'd like to see him bounce back.

comment #26

Daviddb says ...

I just saw Tideland, or at least what I could stomach. I walked out after a little more than an hour. Hasn't Gilliam learned anything about film technique over the years? Gee, let's turn the camera sideways and put an extreme wide angle lens on the camera and shove it at the actors! Boy, won't that look "stylish"! This movie is unwatchable so he has no reason to criticize ANYONE not even Chris Columbus, who admittedly is a mediocre filmmaker. TG's comments sound more and more like petty jealousy over the fact that the HP movies were wildly successful even without his alleged "genius". And I loved 12 monkeys and parts of Brazil, but after seeing Tideland, I'm starting to have more respect for Sid Sheinberg.