fusillo

"The tale of the Fisher King concerns a crippled king whose leg wound renders the land barren. The hero (Gawain, Percival, or Galahad) meets the Fisher King and is invited to a feast at the castle. The Grail is still presented as a platter of abundance but is also part of a series of mystical relics, which also include a spear that drips blood (interpreted by some as the Spear of Longinus) and a broken sword. The purpose of the relics is to incite the hero to question their nature and thus break the spell of the ailing king and the barren land, but the hero invariably fails in this endeavor." (source: Wikipedia). T.S. Eliot in "The Waste Land" merely revisited the Fisher King from the Grail cycle; he didn't invent it. While Gilliam's story is certainly not derived from Eliot's poem. And just to be thorough, Terry Gilliam only directed the introductory short film of "The Meaning of Life" ("The Crimson Permanent Assurance").

Imagine the crazy guy, but Keaton didn't go screw himself; he was sent by MGM and the shitty movies they made him act in from 1929-30... Read above (comment 16).

Ah, and Keaton would be a lowercase director? You mean: enough with the rankings... Yes, the physicality, yes the gags, but what mattered to Keaton was the story. All the gags served to advance it. If a gag, good as it might be, distracted the audience from the story or interrupted its flow, Buster would cut it... And how do you tell a story in cinema? Through the actors' performances, good direction, and proper editing. Well, Buster excelled in all these areas. Finally, did Buster represent silent cinema? Of course, but if he could have spoken, you wouldn't believe how many stories he would have told you...

"...and the director of TG1 Pierluigi Diaco..." ---> Damn, this is really Splatter...

@Melissa: it was indeed Harold Lloyd, the film is "Safety Last" (1923).

I understand, Galakordi, that you didn't mean to say Chaplin is superior to Keaton, but Buster, since he left Roscoe Fatty Arbuckle, has been working at the "Buster Keaton studios." He produced his own films, wrote them, of course acted in them, and edited them. He also took care of the titles in various languages. He depended on MGM only for distribution. Then Joe Schenck, one of his closest collaborators, suggested he sell his studios and work under MGM. The entire "Keaton package," including technicians and writers, was sold to MGM, and Buster could no longer work with his old collaborators, who were assigned different tasks. By "Cameraman," his crew had already vanished... If Buster hadn't sold his studios, he would likely have produced sound films, like Harold Lloyd had started to do. Buster proposed various ideas to the MGM executives that were ignored... He was forced to make films he didn't like. Then he divorced, and his ex-wife deprived him of all his possessions. To top it off, he started drinking heavily (understatement), and the picture is complete.

@Galakordi urtis krat: I've said it several times here on deb and I don't want to sound boring, but Keaton was not crushed by sound at all, and above all, he never became obsolete. Obsolete, in fact downright ugly, are the films MGM made him do after 1929. Films that are not his!!! Don't mess with Buster or I’ll get angry. :-)

Am I wrong or did they also record the theme for "Starsky & Hutch"? Just to be sure: great review!

Of the ladies you mentioned, I only like Fiona Apple... Yet "Crucify," if I remember correctly, wasn't bad. I mean the original, the remix (not the club version) I don't know...

"I CAN'T STAND THE VOICE... bla, bla... painkiller and maybe anti-inflammatory FROM Thom Yorke" ---> Well, not all evils come to harm...