Tideland

[JCPhoenix]

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/tideland-banner2.jpg

Director: Terry Gilliam

Runtime: 122 minutes

Release Date: October 13 (Limited)

Cast: Jeff Bridges, Jodelle Ferland, Brendan Fletcher, Janet McTeer

Synopsis: After her mother dies from a heroin overdose, Jeliza-Rose is taken from the big city to a rural farmhouse by her father. As she tries to settle into a new life in a house her father had purchased for his now-deceased mother, Jeliza-Rose's attempts to deal with what's happened result in increasingly odd behavior, as she begins to communicate mainly with her bodiless Barbie doll heads and Dell, a neighborhood woman who always wears a beekeeper's veil. (courtesy of IMDb)




Just saw this tonight with a couple friends and I'd asy it's truly the darkest and most disturbing Gilliam film I've seen yet. Jodelle Ferland was very good in it (though after a while I gotta say I started zoning out) but...I dunno. I feel like it was almost too structureless - Gilliam got exactly the film he wanted in Tideland and for me, it just was a little too aimless throughout the bulk (middle half) of the film.

Also, I felt like other characters (Brendan Fletcher and Janet McTeer) were almost a little too crazy in a sense - I liked the idea of Jeliza-Rose making things up in her mind, etc, fantasies to escape the dark world she lives in, but then the other characters are like completely nuts and insane...

And after a while, I gotta say that watching a little girl muttering to her Barbie doll heads got a little tiring as the movie dragged on...I dunno, I felt quite disappointed with it.

5/10

Gilliam was there as well and he introduced it and answered a few questions afterwards...he did say (for anyone planning on seeing this) to try to watch it with an "innocent" perspective so just keep that in mind if you are going to go watch it.

If you're a Gilliam fan though, I'd say it's still worth checking out - cause while I had my own problems with it, I'm sure other people may love it.

[dman476]

Sad to hear that it sucked.
The film never particularly intrigued me, and as a Gilliam fan I should watch it, but there's other films I want to see more at the moment.
Pity though...

[Lazy Boy]

I've heard a lot of bad stuff about it (walkouts, for one), but the trailer was absolutely breathtaking from what I saw of the images, and I love Gilliam's work for the most part.

[dman476]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
I've heard a lot of bad stuff about it (walkouts, for one), but the trailer was absolutely breathtaking from what I saw of the images, and I love Gilliam's work for the most part.
Aren't you at the very least put off by the subject matter?
I kind of am I guess, but it's a Gilliam film so I guess that doesn't matter much.

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by dman476
Aren't you at the very least put off by the subject matter?
I kind of am I guess, but it's a Gilliam film so I guess that doesn't matter much.

It reminds me of a wonderfully imaginative British film from the 80's, an overlooked gem called Paperhouse, about a young girl who escapes into a fantasy world via her crayon drawings, but many of the images contained are representative of her negative feelings towards her father, whom we see mostly in shadows, a towering figure.

Any attempts at showing a child's emotional outlet via their imagination is always a plus with me. Subject matter is second in Gilliam's films to me, since I'm always in awe of the images with which he intoxicates me.

[dman476]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
It reminds me of a wonderfully imaginative British film from the 80's, an overlooked gem called Paperhouse, about a young girl who escapes into a fantasy world via her crayon drawings, but many of the images contained are representative of her negative feelings towards her father, whom we see mostly in shadows, a towering figure.

Any attempts at showing a child's emotional outlet via their imagination is always a plus with me. Subject matter is second in Gilliam's films to me, since I'm always in awe of the images with which he intoxicates me.
Paperhouse sounds interesting, and I may have to check that out as well as Tideland. And nicely stated too. I agree, it's all about the fantasy element in Gilliam's world, not what is actually happening.
I've decided that I'll see this if it comes by near me, at the very least it'll be pretty to look at. :)

[Lazy Boy]

Paperhouse may be a rarity to find to find on DVD, unless there's an import -- I have an old VHS copy, and I've never seen any other format in the U.S.

Back to Tideland, here's a clip of the oh so cheeky Gilliam doing some "promotion" for Tideland:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6xhmjht6O8

[JCPhoenix]

Originally posted by dman476
Sad to hear that it sucked.
The film never particularly intrigued me, and as a Gilliam fan I should watch it, but there's other films I want to see more at the moment.
Pity though...

Well I'd still say it's worth it to check it out...you never know, it's not a film that I have a lot of criticisms about (besides the meandering storyline) but rather it just didn't click for me...another friend who came to see it actually loved it, he gave it 9/10...

The thing about a film like this is, I think it evokes different reactions in people in a way that doesn't necessarily speak to its quality...I think it's very well-made and quite well-done, and it certainly fits the intent that Gilliam had when making the film, it just didn't work for me in particular is all.

And btw, Gilliam was awesome...there was a Q&A with him after the film but it was short and sort of crappy (people asked the stupidest questions...one guy said something to the extent that he thought Jeff Bridges didn't fit the role and he asked why Gilliam chose to cast Bridges against type and everyone (including GIlliam) I think was flabbergasted...Gilliam actually mentioned The Big Lebowski here and how Bridges in this movie was sort of like the Dude from Lebowski but older...he also mentioned that Bridges was his first choice when reading the book for the role...

That Q&A sucked overall but he had a nice two hour or so Q&A the day before with film students (Vincenzo Natali (director of Cube, Cypher) was there as well since he's doing the making-of documentary for Tideland) and he answered a lot of questions...

And I got my Fear & Loathing and Brazil DVDs signed that day :):) (the former being my display pic right now to the left) which was awesome...when I went up to him though, I felt so stupid lol I was just like uhh, I love your films...couldn't say anything when he was signing lol

[Strider]

Just out of curiosity, is Tideland playing anywhere in Los Angeles? I looked at today's L.A. showtimes at IMDB, and it was nowhere to be found.

Anyway, I think Terry Gilliam is awesome (this is coming from someone who has only seen two of his films, plus all the Monty Python stuff), and the film sounds intriguing. I cannot believe all the negative reviews, though (Berardinelli gave it 1 1/2 stars). Even if it's an awful film, I feel like I should pay to see it in theaters for Gilliam's sake.

Strider

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by Strider
Just out of curiosity, is Tideland playing anywhere in Los Angeles? I looked at today's L.A. showtimes at IMDB, and it was nowhere to be found.

It's opening next weekend at the Landmark's Nuart theater on Santa Monica Blvd, probably for one week at the most.

[dman476]

Originally posted by JCPhoenix
The thing about a film like this is, I think it evokes different reactions in people in a way that doesn't necessarily speak to its quality...I think it's very well-made and quite well-done, and it certainly fits the intent that Gilliam had when making the film, it just didn't work for me in particular is all.
That's exactly how I feel with his other films, except I'm on the side that like 'em.
I want to watch it, but I doubt I can next week (too many good films).
This is not playing in LA this week since it only opened in NY.
And regarding dvd signing, I always feel stupid when I come up. :D

[Moviefan02000]

I originally wanted to see this, but the bad reviews are definitely putting me off. I'll wait for DVD.

[Lazy Boy]

http://www.a-film.nl/film/poster/RELx550/00000484.jpg

Tideland - 7/10

Terry Gilliam shot this anti-mainstream picture during shooting breaks from his big budget dud The Brothers Grimm, and he also described the experience as one that reunited him with his inner child. The feeling may not be mutual for all moviegoers, as this bizarre childhood fantasy takes most of its time from Jeliza Rose's (Jodelle Ferland) banter with her severed dolls heads and her distant, drugged out corpse of a father (Jeff Bridges), while at the mean time befriending a mentally handicapped man named Dickens (Brendan Fletcher) and avoiding his one-eyed witch-like sister, Dell (Janet McTeer). For a film about a girl who uses imagination to come of age, in quite scary ways, the scope of the story (if there is one) is limited to wading through the tall stalks of grass -- reminiscient of a Terrence Malick movie, punctuated by patented Gilliam fish-eye camera angles -- and a brief attempt at connecting Jeliza's self-created story as an attache to Lewis Carrol's Alice in Wonderland.

I'm really torn on this film, because half of me wants to go the route of supporting the auteur to counter the onslaught of unfair negativity (the one thing I read is "depraved" -- a childhood should not entirely be cluttered with innocent images, must take the sour and sweet, does not mean this movie is exploitative), but I just can't in this case. Once you get Jennifer Tilly (as Jeliza's junkie mom) out of the way, the film gets less embarassing and more focused. Hell, even Bridges, so fine in other roles, gets in the way, and by the film, won't have entirely left it, either. The movie is not a train wreck (although many so-called "witticisms" call it so and justify it based on the climactic scene), but there is a feeling that Gilliam could've done better. A child's dreamland is not fully realized because half of the stuff we don't see is probably filtered through her imagination, thus leaving us deprived.

Edit: forgot to add that Ferland's performance is astonishing...one of the clear cut cases of natural talent overcoming the usual H-wood manufactured Fanning clone we see...since this is film is roughly all about Jeliza Rose, Ferland must carry every scene she is in, and does so without seeming forced.

[dman476]

The film sounds absolutely spooky...you can't deny that.
After all that, it doesn't seem like a film I'd rush out to see.
But man, what a contrast of opion, you and A.O. Scott & Roeper.

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by dman476
The film sounds absolutely spooky...you can't deny that.
After all that, it doesn't seem like a film I'd rush out to see.
But man, what a contrast of opion, you and A.O. Scott & Roeper.

It is spooky -- reminds me of a quote from David Cronenberg, calling it a "poetic horror film," which is accurate -- but most fairy tales are pretty weird and messed up and put children through a lot of strife before the requisite happy ending. Tideland takes it to the extreme of taste -- pedophilia and necrophilia are two such examples hinted at -- but it never fully crosses that line because the characters who go through it, mainly Jeliza Rose and Dexter, she of the young age of ten, he of the mental age of near or less than that, remain innocent to the horrors of real life which prey upon them, reimagined as bog monster or giant sharks. I would think that's how most children filter the harsh realities of home life (abuse, negligence, death).

I wouldn't say rush to see it in theaters, either...

[dman476]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
It is spooky -- reminds me of a quote from David Cronenberg, calling it a "poetic horror film," which is accurate -- but most fairy tales are pretty weird and messed up and put children through a lot of strife before the requisite happy ending. Tideland takes it to the extreme of taste -- pedophilia and necrophilia are two such examples hinted at -- but it never fully crosses that line because the characters who go through it, mainly Jeliza Rose and Dexter, she of the young age of ten, he of the mental age of near or less than that, remain innocent to the horrors of real life which prey upon them, reimagined as bog monster or giant sharks. I would think that's how most children filter the harsh realities of home life (abuse, negligence, death).

I wouldn't say rush to see it in theaters, either...
The film sounds...obscure. Let's just leave it at that, but I like how you describe it though. I'm probably not going to see it, but I am definitely intrigued. :)

[chinton]

This is really no fair. I desperately want to see this film and its leaving the Nuart on Thursday gone forever. It better come on video but I really just wanted to see this in theaters.

[chinton]

this really makes me mad that for amovie with supposedly such beautiful wide vistas Im not going to be seeing it on the screen.

It better come out on DVD or I'll be pissed.

[dman476]

I think it'll come out on dvd.
But watch it on Thursday if you can.

[chinton]

I would but I can't. There no parking for Nuart except on the street and Santa Monica Blvd. at rush hour is just a nightmare. Oh well. Wish it was staying for this weekend.

[dman476]

Oh, I'm sorry.
That really sucks :(

[Monotreme]

I'm so excited to see this one. Sounds like it could really go either way, like with Fear and Loathing - many people dislike that film, some even immensely. But I love it to bits. Can't wait to see this, it ceratinly looks like somewhat of a return to form for Gilliam - that is, weird and creepy as hell. Unfortunately, no release date is slated for here yet, which makes me fear that it may not see a release at all. If so, I'll just have to wait for the DVD.

[elliott smith]

I've seen way too many bad reviews on here. I guess it's to be expected, Gilliam is not for everyone but if you like his other work I'm not sure why this would be any different. To me, this is very typical Gilliam (beautiful, insane, and yes slightly awkward to watch). If your one of those people who have watched 'Fear and Loathing' a crap load of times, you should enjoy 'Tideland'. I most certainly did.

[chinton]

Originally posted by elliott smith
I've seen way too many bad reviews on here. I guess it's to be expected, Gilliam is not for everyone but if you like his other work I'm not sure why this would be any different. To me, this is very typical Gilliam (beautiful, insane, and yes slightly awkward to watch). If your one of those people who have watched 'Fear and Loathing' a crap load of times, you should enjoy 'Tideland'. I most certainly did.


You just sealed the deal for me. Fear and Loathing is an underrated gem. Its still burns when I hear critics say that that movie had no point. I'm sorry I guess you just shut your eyes and ears during the last 20 minutes of the film where the point becomes quite clear. Idiots.

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by chinton
You just sealed the deal for me. Fear and Loathing is an underrated gem. Its still burns when I hear critics say that that movie had no point. I'm sorry I guess you just shut your eyes and ears during the last 20 minutes of the film where the point becomes quite clear. Idiots.
Totally agree. A very underrated film among the film critic circle.

[dman476]

It's coming out on dvd February 27 2007.
So yeah Chinton, your wish came true. ;)

[chinton]

not soon enough

I'm about 40 pages into the book. I can see why Gilliam took it. Pretty much plotless, weird, groteque, disturbing, but totally fascinating.

[dman476]

Originally posted by chinton
not soon enough

I know, but better late than never.

[mutesaint]

Did this movie ever hit wide release? I live in Houston, Texas and I swear to god that it never played here. Ugh. It better come out on DVD.

[someguy]

Biggest disappointment of '06 and one of the worst this year. I'm a huge fan of Gilliam's work but I don't know what he did here to cause this massive wreck of a movie. It started out pretty interesting and then it just went nowhere good up until halfway in or so, but that only lasted for 5 minutes before going right back to nothing. The directing is awesome as always, but every character except for Eliza grated me to no end. Especially her mentally challenged friend, it was like paradise without him on screen. Ferland was good though, it's pretty amazing for someone her age to carry a movie on her shoulders so nicely. Those are the two real compliments I can give, for the most part it bordered between annoying and boring.

[movie2cats]

I finally watched this last night, and I have to say that I developed a love/hate relationship with it instantly. It was one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen, and I wasn't really put off by the subject matter (which is disturbing mind you), but it just didn't flow like Gilliam's other pieces. Truly I thought Brothers Grimm flowed better and that was nearly a train wreck (the first time I watched it). Brendan Fletcher and Jodelle Ferland were both fantastic and them onscreen together was something they both should be proud of. Bridges is just Bridges. Even at his worst (which this wasn't it!) he can run circles around most people in Hollywood and we all love "The Dude" so it was nice to see him back (albeit in a much more damaged state). It really just seemed like Gilliam got to attached to anything he shot and couldn't cut it properly. Anyway, it's beautiful, it's haunting, it's disturbing... it's Gilliam! Just not great.

6/10

Adding onto my little blurb, I too was reminded heavily of Paperhouse. I haven't seen that movie in YEARS, but it just jumped out at me. I wish I could find a stateside copy of that, but alas, not today (I was living in Japan when I watched it and one of my friends from Sheffield owned a copy).