"If you're not failing every now and again, it's a sign you're not doing anything very innovative."
That's Woody Allen talking and you know what, the neurotic genius is right. And I had to start my review of "Time Bandits" with that statement for two reasons: I think the film failed to deliver its premise, but it is a failure signaling the emergence of a unique talent: Terry Gilliam, the Monty Python artist whose mind was like a laboratory of fantasy images and psychedelic extravaganza, responsible for some of the most peculiar movies of the last decades. They were not equally appealing, he's certainly one of the most divisive directors, but if you judge innovation by the frequency of failures, he might be the most innovative director.
"Time Bandits" is about a curious and gentle little kid embarking in an time-traveling adventure, from Ancient Greece to Sherwood Forest, Napoleon Wars to the Titanic sinking, from a futuristic time to a pirates ship, with six dwarfs specializing in robbing relics and precious items from the eras they visit, this premise alone is just too irresistible for words. But for some reason that totally beats me, Terry Gilliam turns it into a rather dull, repetitive, unfunny film, one that goes uninteresting quite quickly anyway. Maybe a director like Steven Spielberg could have given it a more entertaining structure and compelling story, but Spielberg was busy making "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and then, he would make "E.T.". There are reasons why these films are classics and "Time Bandits" a cult-movie mostly known by Gilliam aficionados, Spielberg knew the kind of thrills and emotional elements the audience wanted.
"Time Bandits" doesn't even provide an alternative to the "Spielbergian" adventure; it is an assemblage of different vignettes, all set in different times but that stopped to be impressive as the film progresses. It is worth starting by giving Caesar's what is Caesar's: the production design and settings are top notch, on an Oscar worthy level. But like it often occurs with Gilliams' movies and this one should have been another signal, Gilliam gets so carried away by all the special effects that you never get the feeling he's really directing the film, you don't get the direction, literally. Some parts stretch for far too long without providing much novelty, apart from the visual escapism, and the fact that the kid is more of a follower doesn't provide much room for gags or inventiveness. The dwarfs lead the show and it's not saying much.
Don't get me wrong, there are some pretty good parts, the opening where the kid meets the six little thieves and they leave the room, followed by an ominous divine-like figure, is thrilling, unsettling and overall captivating. The Evil One, played by David Warner, is an interesting antagonist in his obsession to surpass God with a creation that would take technology as a focal point. There is also a magnificent climax that kind of redeems the flaws and perhaps provides, as Gene Siskel named it, the ultimate rescue, from any movie, but then it is also ruined by a rather bizarre and abrupt ending. And watching the show with Ebert and Siskel, I could see a glee in Siskel's eyes, he wanted to recommend the film but found it too boring. And I agree, I can't recommend this film that feels like a draft of "Munchausen" which wasn't flawless anyway.
Ebert liked the film a little more but there was no enthusiasm in his eyes, and he conceded that kids might enjoyed it for what it was, a series of adventures in different settings, maybe like a video game or a Tintin book. I don't even think he's right. First, the film is just too long even by adult movies' standards, it drags on for two hours and not every scene is indispensable. It could have done without the Titanic part where the special effects didn't match the previous parts. Secondly, the kid is a passive character, he doesn't even have the biting wit of Sally in "Munchausen", he's an adorable little boy who just follows the dwarfs and that's it. There's no coming-of-age element of any sort, no real change of character's arc, I wouldn't underestimate the kids and take for granted that they don't expect a character's arc. Finally, the tone oscillates between moments of sophisticated wits and surrealistic confrontations that might disconcert children.
Maybe "Time Bandits" tries to be something between "Tron" and "The Man Who Would be King", with a mixture of Monty Python flavor, a video game of Kiplingesque magnitude, I guess, but it just comes anachronistic compared to what the 80's had to offer and not just Spielberg, a film like "The Princess' Bride" has got the wit, the warmth and the charm "Time Bandits" is lacking. Maybe Gilliam takes its setting, and casting (Sean Connery, John Cleese, Patrick Vaughan and many of Gilliam regulars) for granted and doesn't care for showing some real warmth or depth in the characters, so even as a kids' movie, it doesn't quite succeed.
Now, it all comes down to a dilemma, either you praise the film but not with enthusiasm or you condemn it with magnanimity. This is a film full of good intentions, but in its own right as a two-hour spectacle, you better have something to do while you're watching it, it's not really an attention grabber.
That's Woody Allen talking and you know what, the neurotic genius is right. And I had to start my review of "Time Bandits" with that statement for two reasons: I think the film failed to deliver its premise, but it is a failure signaling the emergence of a unique talent: Terry Gilliam, the Monty Python artist whose mind was like a laboratory of fantasy images and psychedelic extravaganza, responsible for some of the most peculiar movies of the last decades. They were not equally appealing, he's certainly one of the most divisive directors, but if you judge innovation by the frequency of failures, he might be the most innovative director.
"Time Bandits" is about a curious and gentle little kid embarking in an time-traveling adventure, from Ancient Greece to Sherwood Forest, Napoleon Wars to the Titanic sinking, from a futuristic time to a pirates ship, with six dwarfs specializing in robbing relics and precious items from the eras they visit, this premise alone is just too irresistible for words. But for some reason that totally beats me, Terry Gilliam turns it into a rather dull, repetitive, unfunny film, one that goes uninteresting quite quickly anyway. Maybe a director like Steven Spielberg could have given it a more entertaining structure and compelling story, but Spielberg was busy making "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and then, he would make "E.T.". There are reasons why these films are classics and "Time Bandits" a cult-movie mostly known by Gilliam aficionados, Spielberg knew the kind of thrills and emotional elements the audience wanted.
"Time Bandits" doesn't even provide an alternative to the "Spielbergian" adventure; it is an assemblage of different vignettes, all set in different times but that stopped to be impressive as the film progresses. It is worth starting by giving Caesar's what is Caesar's: the production design and settings are top notch, on an Oscar worthy level. But like it often occurs with Gilliams' movies and this one should have been another signal, Gilliam gets so carried away by all the special effects that you never get the feeling he's really directing the film, you don't get the direction, literally. Some parts stretch for far too long without providing much novelty, apart from the visual escapism, and the fact that the kid is more of a follower doesn't provide much room for gags or inventiveness. The dwarfs lead the show and it's not saying much.
Don't get me wrong, there are some pretty good parts, the opening where the kid meets the six little thieves and they leave the room, followed by an ominous divine-like figure, is thrilling, unsettling and overall captivating. The Evil One, played by David Warner, is an interesting antagonist in his obsession to surpass God with a creation that would take technology as a focal point. There is also a magnificent climax that kind of redeems the flaws and perhaps provides, as Gene Siskel named it, the ultimate rescue, from any movie, but then it is also ruined by a rather bizarre and abrupt ending. And watching the show with Ebert and Siskel, I could see a glee in Siskel's eyes, he wanted to recommend the film but found it too boring. And I agree, I can't recommend this film that feels like a draft of "Munchausen" which wasn't flawless anyway.
Ebert liked the film a little more but there was no enthusiasm in his eyes, and he conceded that kids might enjoyed it for what it was, a series of adventures in different settings, maybe like a video game or a Tintin book. I don't even think he's right. First, the film is just too long even by adult movies' standards, it drags on for two hours and not every scene is indispensable. It could have done without the Titanic part where the special effects didn't match the previous parts. Secondly, the kid is a passive character, he doesn't even have the biting wit of Sally in "Munchausen", he's an adorable little boy who just follows the dwarfs and that's it. There's no coming-of-age element of any sort, no real change of character's arc, I wouldn't underestimate the kids and take for granted that they don't expect a character's arc. Finally, the tone oscillates between moments of sophisticated wits and surrealistic confrontations that might disconcert children.
Maybe "Time Bandits" tries to be something between "Tron" and "The Man Who Would be King", with a mixture of Monty Python flavor, a video game of Kiplingesque magnitude, I guess, but it just comes anachronistic compared to what the 80's had to offer and not just Spielberg, a film like "The Princess' Bride" has got the wit, the warmth and the charm "Time Bandits" is lacking. Maybe Gilliam takes its setting, and casting (Sean Connery, John Cleese, Patrick Vaughan and many of Gilliam regulars) for granted and doesn't care for showing some real warmth or depth in the characters, so even as a kids' movie, it doesn't quite succeed.
Now, it all comes down to a dilemma, either you praise the film but not with enthusiasm or you condemn it with magnanimity. This is a film full of good intentions, but in its own right as a two-hour spectacle, you better have something to do while you're watching it, it's not really an attention grabber.