Tideland Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
The squirrels made it seem less lonely
After her mother dies from a methadone 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.
| Jodelle Ferland | Jeliza-Rose/Voices of Dolls |
| Janet McTeer | Dell |
| Brendan Fletcher | Dickens |
| Jennifer Tilly | Queen Gunhilda |
| Jeff Bridges | Noah |
| Dylan Taylor | Patrick |
| Wendy Anderson | Woman/Squirrel's Voice |
| Sally Crooks | Dell's Mother |
| Alden Adair | Luke |
| Harry Gilliam | Jerry |
| Kent Wolkowski | Boy |
| Terry Gilliam |
6.70 out of 10 (3366 votes)
Visitor Reviews
One of Gilliam's Best...
posted on 17 Aug 2009For a movie that absolutely bombed at the box office, and has received from mainstream critics horrible reviews, I was expecting the worse. But then again, there was a wildcard in all of this, and that's Terry Gilliam. I thought "The Brothers Grimm" was pretty bad, but again, I'm not sure how much of that was due to the studio's actions. This is one of Gilliam's best movies, IMO, and I loved every minute of it. This nightmarish fantasy world through a little girl's mind, whose druggie parents both die, is amazing. The story is basically about Jeliza-Rose, a nine or ten year old girl, that lives in a world of fantasy but reality keeps nudging her back to real life, which is a pretty bizarre world. Jodelle Ferland that plays her, was a real find for Gilliam, as she is perfect in every way. I can understand how some people may have been very uneasy about the film's content for several reasons, but I also think those people as Gilliam points out, missed the whole point of the movie. The whole cast is excellent all the way from Jeff Bridges as her heroin addicted Father to her pregnant mother in a very short performance by Jennifer Tilly. Outside of the brilliant performance by Jodelle, the other superb performance of the movie is Brendan Fletcher as the mentally challenged friend that Jeliza-Rose more-or-less adopts. This is a very personal movie as Gilliam opines in the excellent commentary, and this is a movie that everybody should see with an open mind. It surprised me, and satisfied me as only a good movie can, and "Tideland" is a very very good movie. Highly recommended.
Love it or Hate or you could just like it...
posted on 15 Aug 2009You either "Love" or "Hate" this film. The only thing I hated was, that a master such as Terry Gilliam offered this up to the audience in an unnecessary introduction to the film. Just allow the viewing audience to take the reigns and see where it takes them, even if they become afraid and feel the need to let go of them.With that said, I loved this film. This disturbingly dark tale distantly akin to that of Alice in Wonderland lived through the life of the young Jeliza-Rose (brilliantly played by Jodelle Ferland), wise beyond her years, yet hides in fantasy to subconsciously escape the horrors of her life she knows to be painfully real. A life of prepping her Junkie parents(bravura performance by Jennifer Tilly and in a not so stretch of a performance, Jeff Bridges), a solitude life with doll heads as her playmates and the desperate quest for friends to replace them, enter Dell and Dickens(creepily played by Janet McTeer and sympathetically performed by Brendan Fletcher).There are moments horrific, unsettling and uncomfortable, but I think of the few, I got this film. I laughed at the morbidity of it all, at certain points found myself cringing at the relationship developing between Dickens, the mentally challenged younger brother of Dell. I feared so much. The innocence of the relationship and where it could lead to . For me it raised a lot of controversial questions, the "what if" and legal ramifications. Who would be at fault? Would this be considered Pedophilia? Who could make that determination when the mind of the adult is truly that of a child?In the end her resilience to the crumbling world around her is enduring, but does she survive this bizarre madness? You would have to see Jeliza-Rose as an adult or are we given that hint of her future fate amongst the amber fairies?Jodelle has pretty much all of the screen time and holds strong in her performance. The life she breathes into Jeliza-Rose is unequivocal and has surpassed any child performance I have seen on screen other than that of Anna Paquin in the Piano or Jamie Bell in Billy Elliot This movie is not for everyone and yes it could be open for some interesting debates. Yes Gilliam, there are those who will love or hate it but I am sure some who will say its just OK and leave pondering without a strong opinion, just a confused one.
Following Fellini
posted on 22 Jul 2009Terry Gilliam is an artist that is the great thing of him is to solve an idea. This idea is significant, burning: how we can survive in this world and preserve our dignity, because our world lies in evil. This evil is old, ancient, the evil of violence and terror, the evil of scorn for the natural life. Terry Gilliam moves movie after movie through the circles of evil in his quest, in his exposure of source of the evil like Dante in Divine Comedy. His artistic cogitation fills with worry for life, with defense of life and forms the leading theme for his movies."Brazil" is an allusion to Kafka's "The Trial". This is the theme all-powerful and soulless state. "Twelve Monkeys" is the theme of power, of power at any price. Group of "scientists" killed five billion people by spreading deadly viruses to seize power and to enslave the surviving population in a post-apocalyptic future. Using a time machine the scientists send best volunteers ostensibly to destroy this devil plan. In fact, the scientists do everything to prevent the volunteers in execution of their mission. In such a way, the scientists preserve their power. "The Fisher King" is devoted to the "Third Power" - mass communication media that Terry Gilliam belongs. Mass media influence over people, often provocation and its terrible results show up in this genius film-confession.In fact, these films are some tragedies. Main character of the movies, little and lonely hero engages in hopeless battle with power of evil and he is always defeated. Actually, the films are not tragedies but tragicomedies. The world evil with some devil inventiveness mocks at the hero, at his ardor, his courage and generosity provoking futile and crazy deeds now sending him on a mission to find the Holy Grail, now forcing him to acts, which wreck his purposes. Sometimes, Terry Gilliam wisely amuses, like in his lucid comedy "Time Bandits"."Tideland" takes a particular position. The previous films were lofty tragedies, were heroic poems." Tideland" is the first film by Terry Gilliam without such a hero. According to Terry Gilliam, all ways to defense life are finally barred. Social and family madness have overpowered people and are leading them to self-destruction, to crime, to death. "Tideland" is dreadful, dismal poem.Terry Gilliam creates his movies in a one breath; no feebleness, no affectation, nothing for sale! Action in the movies is ardent, uninterrupted; its intensity grows from frame to frame. Inventiveness, mobility, plasticity that Terry Gilliam finds to keep up the high energetic in his films are unprecedented. This is poetics of a great master! Following Fellini, Terry Gilliam represents all the best in the world art of nowadays.
Overwrought expressionism with nothing to say
posted on 18 Jul 2009A frustrating and disappointing supposed return to form finds long time creative mastermind Terry Gilliam wallowing in his own eccentric shallowness to a frightening degree. Immediately surfacing as some fantasy-on-acid, it becomes painfully obvious this oddball script adaptation wishes to relish in blowing off reality, instead choosing to wallow inside the main character's laughably schizophrenic mind, who happens to be an eight year old girl. In the first few minutes Gilliam already begins to employ his compositional trickery through lame attempts leading viewers into a curious sense of morbid wonderment, but all except niche freaks will continue to oblige the once relevant filmmaker.Mainly Tideland does not work because there is precious little substance behind the desperate artistic sentiment, a particularly annoying combination given the director's fondness for bizarre, visually inventive fare, shown to be so successful in the past. With a hollow shell of expression however, any poignancy found in the misfired tragic-comedy, vainly pointing out this young girls dire living situation with supposed comedic intent (as our venerated creator tells us so rudely with a shoddy DVD introduction) falls prey to artsy delusions.What Gilliam cares more about, instead of capturing resonant footage from the impressive yet expectedly misguided performance young Jodelle Ferland lands, is decorating every nook and cranny of his clichéd sets with an overabundance of stale visuals. Paired with the pretentious camera-work, any emotional connections in the utterly ridiculous plot feel completely outweighed by meaningless artistic excess, merely a compensation device for the startling lack of depth.
It Makes Lynch's Films Appear Almost Normal
posted on 16 Jul 2009Nothing in the world prepared me for the trip the ride. From its beginning we know, we are treated to a special narrative that will either bewitch you or repel you. There is absolutely no middle point, no way to compromise the vision of a man who has created some amazing films before. There is so much going on that one viewing might not be enough. There are "straight forward" scenes that are relatively easy to follow, but they are transition scenes. Most of the movie is akin to having a nightmare, a very powerful one.The film basically parallels classics like "The Wizard of Oz" and "Alice in Wonderland", stories that are loaded with symbolism and much more meaning than they appear to have. Here is a girl who wanders into a world that could easily haunt most of us if we take one peak. She, because of her innocence and/or wild imagination, manages to adapt very well. She already has a team of "dolls" that are pretty much open to any type of adventure she might suggest. It is as if almost nothing can shock this extraordinary character.The stops along the way are intense, bewildering, and pretty twisted. The scene with the father's cadaver are some of the strangest ever put on film. The transformation process, his death, the display of his remains are enough to send us into therapy, and this young performer is not even fazed by it. The rest of the supporting characters' interactions with her are equally shocking.Her relationship with the disturbed man she calls her husband will raise a few eyebrows, and only through the use of some creative language, we manage to deal with them. They're powerful, repelling, and quite disturbing. We might be led to believe we have two being of equal intelligence interacting, but their portrayal is still unnerving.The film will have people talking and might become a cult classic, deservedly so. It's not an easy film to watch.
Not for everyone
posted on 30 Jun 2009If ever there was a movie that divides opinion then it could well be this one.It isn't always easy to watch,there are moments of magic but ultimately it failed to hold my attention.I will try and explain why but it might not be that easy! The film starts off pretty uneasily with scenes of a young girl helping her Father to inject drugs.Then we meet the Mother(Queen Gunhilda) who is annoying and overacted to the hilt by Jennifer Tilly.Fortunately she doesn't last long but then again neither does Noah as played by Jeff Bridges.The film starts to go very odd indeed as we are introduced to a brother and sister,Dell and Dickens.They are played well by Janet McTeer and Brendan Fletcher but in the end they become irritating.As the young girl,Jodelle Ferland does a great job as Jeliza-Rose and pretty much holds the film together.It would take too long to go into the plot but the film is seen through the eyes of a child and when you take this into account it is a bit easier to follow the thread of the movie.Terry Gilliam deserves credit for always attempting to make something different but his vivid imagination isn't always to my taste and there are scenes that made me cringe such as when Dickens straddles the young girl and they are almost touching tongues.OK,it is the way many children would act when they are fooling around but when one is much older than the other it bordered on cringe worthy awkwardness,at least to me.Or am I just a prude?Maybe I am as Dickens is a child also,at least mentally.I didn't like their kissing scenes though and that's a fact.The biggest problem I had really was I felt the film lost it's way after half way as the characters became a pain.Even Jeliza-Rose began to grate on the nerves a little with her doll voices.I didn't like the ending of the film either.It felt very contrived with Jeliza-Rose mistaking an injured passenger for Dickens and her finding another apparent lost soul.I didn't hate the movie but I certainly didn't love it either.Terry Gilliam may just have too much imagination for my liking.The film has it's moments but loses itself in it's own very weird world.The director does try to make a different kind of movie but I did expect more.
An 'Alice through the looking glass' adventure...
posted on 22 Jun 2009I first heard about this movie back in 2005... and have been anxious to see it ever since. I purchased a copy of the DVD from Canada, as there is still no glimmer of hope that it will be released over here in Australia. So after almost a two year wait, I finally got to see this much anticipated movie...Unfortunately (or fortunately) Terry Gilliam's films seem to be an acquired taste. I certainly have acquired the taste. I anticipate everything that he does, and I have never been disappointed. Tideland is no exception.Based on the book by Mitch Cullen... but to quote Mitch in an interview with him (on the 2nd DVD's extra features)... "This is Terry Gilliam's story" He has taken the story and shaped it into his own creation.Terry describes the story as an "Alice through the looking glass adventure". The story is viewed through the eyes of Jeliza-Rose. Or to be more accurate, through the imagination of Jeliza-Rose. Like all Gilliam productions, the line between reality and fantasy is not obvious. Although there are certain nuances in the story, that do help in this regard. Jeliza-Rose's perspective on things does change, and if you pick up on this, the line is definitely less blurred. The performance by Jodelle Ferland (who plays Jeliza-Rose) is, to say the least, amazing! There are in fact, no weak performances. The casting was done very well. Or perhaps it was Gilliam's patience and skill (as a director) that managed to shape the performances? Either way, there were no disappointments in this regard.Jeliza-Rose is the daughter of drug addicted parents. Jeliza-Rose's mother does make the comment that Jeliza-Rose was born herself with a drug addiction (as the mother was using at the time of her birth). Perhaps this also has shaped the way that Jeliza-Rose views the world. And made it easier for her to slide into her fantasy realm.After her mother dies from a methadone overdose, Jeliza-Rose and her father (who is still a heroin user) move to a house in the country where the father used to live many years earlier. The course of events that follow, lead Jeliza-Rose to find herself alone. She then seeks to find acceptance (and company) from her only close neighbours, in the only way that she understands.The story does present morally touchy subjects. Subject matter that most directors would shy away from. But I feel that Gilliam presents them in a way that you can understand. This is not a 'feel good' story. This is a story about life, love and how a nine year old girl copes with the life that she has not chosen, but has found herself living. She does not question it. It is the only life she knows and understands. But, with the help of her imagination, she does cope with it.As per all Terry Gilliam films, the layers are so intricate, that repeated viewings are mandatory. The production and set designs, once again, carry Terry's eye for detail that is unsurpassed. 10/10
could have been dark, was just boring
posted on 20 Jun 2009I so disagree with the other reviewers who found the little girl's performance amazing. she always played to the camera and gave no indication of real internal life, ever. she should be playing a smarmy kid in some crappy TV show, always chipper and showing off. only bought her performance for a few seconds here and there. to those shocked at the themes, well you just stay with your safe little movies, what were you expecting? Me, I thought I was promised a dark surreal terrifying film. Maybe it turned out to be just that, but after about a half hour of it I just couldn't bear anymore of it and put it back in the box and came here to crap on it (like several other reviewers, I registered just for that purpose). Not once did i suspend my disbelief, it played out like a setup the whole time.This is so very far from his best work. it's just a jumble, really a major letdown. Oh well, nowhere to go but up!!!
My third favorite Gilliam film, after 12 Monkeys and Brazil
posted on 04 Jun 2009If you're a fan of Terry Gilliam's films, I think you'll like Tideland. Gilliam has always been a champion of style over substance, so I wasn't particularly expecting a masterpiece of ideas here. Tideland, on the other hand, is a visionary fantasy/horror film seen from the point of view of a young girl, Jeliza-Rose (played remarkably by Jodelle Ferland). The setup definitely reminds me of one of the better liked films of 2006, Pan's Labyrinth, but I liked this one infinitely better. It doesn't have Guillermo Del Toro's pretensions. Gilliam sets out to give us something weird and wonderful, and he succeeds with flying colors. After Jeliza-Rose's mother dies, she and her father (Jeff Bridges) flee to her grandmother's rural home, a house that is reminiscent of the Bates Motel. Soon after, her father dies (a fact which Jeliza-Rose, who lives pretty much every moment in her mind, ignores), she meets her two quirky neighbors. The movie is fun and genuinely unsettling. I mostly loved it, except for one part: I don't like how Gilliam tries to build suspense over whether the retarded neighbor (played by Brendan Fletcher) will take advantage of Jeliza-Rose. It makes plenty of sense that Jeliza-Rose would develop sexual feelings toward him (she's a pre-teen with natural curiosity toward sex, and he's mentally even with her, or possibly even below her), but that threat that Gilliam leaves hanging over the latter third of the film made me a tad queasy. Otherwise, I think I might have been gung-ho for it. As it is, I still loved it.
Shut up you Geeks. this movie is boring and you know it.
posted on 31 May 2009I hate when all these geeks get on here and try and act cool by saying that movies such as this are a masterpiece. hey to all you people that say this movie is great, why don't you quit trying to impress the other geeks on here and tell the truth. this movie sucked bad and i have seen all of terry gilliam movies and i like some of them. And trust me i have seen every kind of movie know to man as a matter of fact i own over 780 DVD's of my own. so one word of advice. have a mind of your own and if a movie really sucks then say it does, don't try to impress the next geek that comes on here pretending to be a real movie buff, because your listening to the biggest movie buff in history. and this movie worth barely 3 stars and thats only because Terry Gilliam was behind the camera. other than that i would rate it on the top ten movies that will put you to sleep
For Flannery O'Connor and Dylan Thomas fans, and not for the squeamish.
posted on 31 May 2009I hadn't heard a single thing about this movie before I saw it, which is pretty rare for me, and I suspect that I enjoyed it more as a result. Then, I took a peek at the "rotten tomatoes" site, and felt weirdly vindicated that it was almost universally panned by newspaper and magazine critics. It's the type of film that almost cannot be made in the current Hollywood system: it's poetic, uncompromising, and ruthlessly noncommercial.Not to say that it's "perfect", or even very likable. Fans of Terry Gilliam will recognize some of his favorite tropes, followed here unwaveringly to their vastly disturbing conclusions (I'm being purposely vague to give nothing away - trying to afford you the same "virginal" movie-going experience I had). As a result, some of the acting and design may feel like a rehash. If you require strong plotting and traditional narrative flow, you should probably stay away. There is much in this film that will make you squirm, and not always in a pleasurable way. But it is art, in the sense that it constructs a realized, stand-alone fictional universe, and always abides by its self-defined rules. It reminded me very much of short stories written by both Dylan Thomas and Flannery O'Connor; depictions of mythic, barely recognizable rural countrysides populated by grotesques. Just beneath the surface scum, however, there are a few human souls, however outwardly mangled and unrecognizable, that occasionally break through to the air.Apparently, Tideland is based upon a well-reviewed novel of the same name, written by Mitch Cullin. I'm not surprised that book has received a warmer critical reception than the film. Even assuming that Tideland, the novel, is a superior work, it has the advantage of existing within the literary aesthetic paradigm, whose adherents are more accustomed to, and appreciative of, this particular species of poetic horror. In recent commercial studio cinema, there is less precedent.
Gilliam's Eraserhead --slowly ensnaring you into terror
posted on 17 May 2009Half the movie I wondered when it would start, then I could not take my eyes of the screen. Not since Lynch's Eraserhead have I felt like this -- knowing Gilliam I was waiting for the film to fall into true Alice In Wonderland / magical territory, yet it remained firmly real and anchored into the story until a subtle twist ending (for me at least) that throws the accepted morality of the central character into relief.I find the folks excited about pedophilia to miss the point altogether, probably because of misplaced political correctness. A young girl playing up her femininity with a slightly slow young man does not constitute anything close to pedophilia.Relentlessly beautifully obsessive, uncomfortable yet poetic, this film stayed with me for a while.
Great for fans of TG
posted on 09 May 2009Tideland is very very unusual. I'd kind of describe it as a cross between typical TG fare and an attempt at David Lynch dark surrealism. Don't go into the film thinking you're going to have a neat plot resolution or some holistic comprehension. This one is not 12 Monkeys, nor is it Time Bandits. However, it is extremely well directed and shot, highly 'psychadelic' (whatever that means), demanding in terms of patience and attention, darkly comic, and entertaining.This film is not one for your mom and dad. Some of the content could be labeled as disturbing. I am doing my best to avoid giving any kind of spoilers here, so simply know that if you are a fan of Terry Gilliam, you will probably love this film.
Hell
posted on 23 Apr 2009I have never been so terrorized while watching a movie. The tension in this film is so greatly created but it makes you want to leap out of your seat, dash down the aisle, and never think about kissing again. I felt the need to take a long, hot shower after this film, as it left almost a pile of dirt on each my shoulders. When coming out of movies, I can usually express right away the emotional turnout the film provided but this left me bewildered, stunned, shocked, more adjectives. The art direction was probably some of the most beautiful I've seen, but it's hard to appreciate a film when you keep turning away and groaning in agony at what could happen next. I suggest seeing the film, as it is masterfully done and quite beautiful, but be prepared to be repulsed and saddened by all that you see.
2 hours I will never get back - Terry Gilliam needs to retire
posted on 09 Apr 2009I don't want to waste to much energy on this title - but the reality is I went into this movie with an open mind not really knowing what to expect. I sat and sat waiting for Gilliams past talents to kick in. But the reality is this was a weak story - a story that shouldn't of even been thought up. What a waste of time, money and energy. And I'm not talking about the money I paid to see it. I'm talking about the money wasted by the Canadian and British film industry - money that could of been better spent on not letting a Monty Has been create true crap! Don't waste your time on this - I haven't seen such a bad movie since What Dreams May Come!
A master of dark fantasy makes an Alice in Wonderland that's definitely not for kids
posted on 01 Apr 2009Alice lives in a dream world most of the time while her father is on vacation. After fixing her fathers heroin injection with a stupefying level of expertise for an eight year old girl she enters her own imaginary world as deep as his. Hers however is the result of a precocious mind faced with long periods of isolation. She keeps herself amused with an assortment of some not so pretty dolls.As must happen with the offspring of heroin addicted parents she finds herself orphaned and alone before long. Unfortunately the last thing her father did before he passed was to relocate her to a barren Canadian plain where the wind across the endless grassland looks like the waves of an ocean (hence tideland). Her periods of isolation are magnified by the empty space around her. After her fathers death this void became huge and her imagination grows to fill the void.Her own eerie imaginary world soon merges with another's, a neighbour's, her father's sister's, who lives a reality even darker than this little girl can imagine.Who could have thought that a movie could be made so completely gruesome and macabre that a train wreck at the end would result in a happy ending? P.S. Jeff Bridges has definitely looked better P.P.S. Does anyone know why she dreams of old men dancing with bears?
Down the Rabbit Hole.
posted on 20 Mar 2009Are you ready to submerse yourself into the rabbit hole? If you are, then Terry Gilliam (Brazil, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas) will more than gleefully kick you down it, with no light in sight. Gilliam's newest feature, Tideland, feels like an acid induced dream, not much unlike much of Fear and Loathing. Tideland delves into the mind of the young Jeliza Rose played by Jodelle Ferland. Her clear parental misleadings, or educations have driven her into a delusional psychosis that only herself and the characters in the film deem explanatory or even understandable. Jeff Bridges, father to the girl, plays a heroin addicted hippie obsessed with the notion of escaping into a Nordic country. Much of the acting and ambiance of the film is shocking, but can be expected from this milestone filmmaker.Much of the film is shot outdoors, in vast fields surrounded by nothing for miles, transforming Jeliza's solidarity into a form of schizophrenia. There are many scenes in the film that evoke a form of innocence only a young diluted mind could have, which does seem to be instilled in most. Gilliam never struggles in this film, showing his talent does supersede his nearly tarnished reputation as a reputable filmmaker. There are so many beautiful scenes, that in retrospect seem dull, but are brought to a much higher level through Gilliam's direction.The only complaint I do have, is that this film does seem like just another Gilliam flick. There is nothing different in his very distinct style, nothing that strays from his norm. It seems that directors like Gilliam or Tim Burton have a niche, and they don't like to experiment outside that niche. I am not saying that this film is boring or repetitive in any way, only that his style has his signature stamp all over it. Despite all this, Tideland was the perfect film for this type of filmmaker and it shows in this tightly crafted "ride" of a film.
What's Gone Wrong with Gilliam?
posted on 18 Mar 2009Tideland shows Gilliam's problems- he can do wonderful things, but he can't put a film together. Watch a few minutes of Tideland and you can tell you're in the presence of a great director and you'd think it was a great film. Watch the whole thing and it's something of a bore. What's wrong with it then? First of all, while it looks almost entirely from the consciousness of an eleven year old girl, this is the daughter of two soon-dead addicts. the only other characters we see much of are her father's childhood sweetheart, the now mad taxidermist bee-killer Dell, and Dell's brother (or perhaps Jeliza-Rose's half-brother and Dell's daughter) a brain-damaged epileptic young man named Dickens. In short, we are looking at things from a strange perspective and there isn't a single representation of normality to enable us to guess how things are. An eleven-year old girl's view of life could be interesting and revelatory; an eleven-year old with a completely distorted view of life looking at grotesques isn't interesting. Finally, there're the problems that Gilliam seems to have when he chooses his own material now; like Fear and Loathing, there's no relief. Everything is at maximum intensity all the time. He turns everything up to "11" and leaves it there. There's the further problem that- again like Fear and Loathing- there's no plot or sequence or events. It's just one damn thing after another until it all- literally- blows to bits. Gilliam is still wonderful at making shots. He just doesn't know how to make films any more.
Wow
posted on 10 Mar 2009This is my first comment on a movie after years of visiting this site. And it's not much of a comment because this movie left me speechless. Profoundly moving, beautiful and tragic. Lot's of people simply won't "get" this film. For those who do, You have already been through the rabbit hole. Stunning work. Very highly recommended for thinking viewers. Amazing acting, superb cinematography and a story that is as beautiful as it is heart rending. Innocence and tragedy combined in a way that only life could throw at you and seen through the mind that must cope.Jodelle Ferland Shines in this amazing work of art. Thank you Mr. Gilliam.
Curiouser and curiouser ...
posted on 27 Aug 2009As a very longtime Gilliam fan (I saw Time Bandits from the front row of a theatre in Portland, Oregon, five nights in a row when it first came out, and have watched every one of his films hundreds of times), I was enormously frustrated by the delays in this film getting distribution, and the fact that, even when it "opened," it wasn't showing anywhere within a hundred miles of my location. I waited for the DVD, and I'm glad I did; I'm not sure I could have appreciated this film in one sitting. As some have said, I too might have headed for the exit, not because I was upset *with* the film, but upset *by* it, in a good way. Watching it over four nights was far better, with pauses for my unconscious mind to digest its disturbing yet beautiful trajectories. I think that people today expect a sort of social contract with films -- the films will stay films, will entertain but never challenge, you will feel you have your popcorn's worth, yawn, and go home (stopping on the way to get a happy meal with a film tie-in toy). Gilliam has never signed such a contract, and here he even tears up the older understanding his viewers had, that whatever Baron Munchausen or Parry might do, it would have no sexual overtones, and would never really endanger the Sally Salts of the world. Here Gilliam allows these darker currents to flow freely, and the result threatens at several points to overwhelm the viewer with the thought "if he's gone this far, how much farther will he go next?" On the other hand, all our master storytellers have been, as Gilliam notes, rather grim; consider in this case Mrs. Haversham's wedding cake in Great Expectations (is that why the boy here is named Dickens, perhaps?) or Faulkner's A Rose for Emily. Their dark side is essential to what makes them tick, and essential to our being enthralled. It is just that much harder to *see* such things as to *read* about them -- but amazingly, despite the darkest moments of this film, my overall feeling on having completed viewing it is one of suspended, strange, light, of airiness, of floating above those endless Saskatchewan fields of wheat.I know I will watch this film again -- and I hope that people who may have heard poor reviews of it will ignore them, and see it anyway. It's a rich, mature work from one of our masters, and I hope that it will recover from the knee-jerk revulsion of some reviewers, and that said reviewers will be as embarrassed by their comments years hence as (for example) those who attached Michael Powell's Peeping Tom for similar reasons.