Gilliam is a kook. I do watch his movies since I think he breaks new ground with a visual carnival type look in most of his films. As far as any sort of emotional or intellectual stirrings, it usually doesn't happen with his films. I've seen the documentary "lost in lamancha" about his tragic failed movie that lost millions and was never made, and assessed he is somewhat insane. He has these grandiose visions and will make them happen even if it's not relevant to the story. I do like that to an extent since it's really a non-linear, freeform way to do a film. You don't see much like that in Hollywood.

The one exception is "The Fisher King". It's brilliant on all levels. It has a story with, I think, great characters. It's light on Gilliam's trademark "crazy shit" scenes. I think he must have been reined in from LaLaLand by Hollywood producers since he was working with Jeff Bridges and Robin Williams. It's a great film. The others you listed don't even come close. I'd check that one out for sure. It's loosely based on the Fisher King myth of a wounded man seeking solace. I think it's the only film of his that everything clicks nicely in to place.

I'm glad though someone from MP fame is doing films, rather than travel journals and cookbooks.

re: Bob Dylan. How did some guy from Hibbing get that nasally Northeastern voice? I guess you had to be there for the Dylan phenom. Doesn't stoke my coals either.

I've never understood Dylan either.
I've always considered him to be something of a conceit of the mildly pretentious. You know what I mean......people who pretend that they only like dreary poetry by some dreary poet that killed themselves, ugly, misshapen art that no one can decipher or movies that no one really understands or likes, and for that very reason.
Dylan is a gifted songwriter, though I admit to not "getting" him, and his voice just kills me.
So droning and nasal; I mean, at least Mel Tillis stops stuttering when he sings; Dylan would sound the same whether he's singing or reading the phone book to blind people.

I think that in order to "get" Dylan, you have to understand (and maybe appreciate) the music that influenced him. Compared to most of the other folk/rock singers of the 60's, his voice certainly stands out like a sore thumb. But if you go back and listen to old blues and folk records from the 1920's, 30's and 40's, Dylan's voice actually fits right in. He didn't want to have a commercial sound. He wanted to sound like one of those backwoods singers with no formal musical training. The story goes that he actually had a nice singing voice (he's occasionally used it on songs like "Lay, Lady, Lay") but that he adopted a harsher nasally tone and an Oklahoma accent after he started listening to Woodie Guthrie.

For people who don't particularly care for his voice, the appeal lies in the lyrics, which are indeed much more sophisticated than the average pop song. Take the final verse of "Tambourine Man":
Yes to dance beneath the diamond skies
with one hand waving free,
silhouetted by the sea,
circled by the circus sands,
with all memory and fate,
driven deep beneath the waves,
let me forget about today until tomorrow.

Or he could also be tremendously funny, as in "Leopard Skin Pill Box Hat":
You look so pretty in it.
Honey, can I jump on it sometime?
I just want to see if it's really that expensive kind.
Well it balances on your head just like a mattress balances on a bottle of wine,
your brand new leopard skin pill box hat.

I can't imagine it's possible to persuade anyone to like Dylan who doesn't already. But like anything with a strong flavor - from strong beer to pickled herring - if you develop a taste for it you can't get enough.