REVIEWS

Stating that any movie is the worst of the year seriously erodes what limited credibility this reviewer has. It sounds like another critic jumping on the Terry Gilliam bashing bandwagon. (he's not Hollywood you see). Critical acclaim for Gilliams movies usually grows with the passing of time. This film I predict will follow the same pattern. I've seen it twice and consider it one of the better movies to come out this year.

Dumb review. Great film. Caught it twice at The Music Box. Even better the second time. How come reviews like the one here spend so much time attacking Gilliam and not saying much about the movie? You get the feeling if Chris Columbus had made the exact same movie these guys would be jumping through hoops to praise him.

What a transparent joke! Harkin, aka Billington, you're not fooling anyone. Your review is so full of holes its laughable. I love how you say the film is so awful, the worst film of the year, and yet you say the film is "creative and imaginitve", Jodelle Ferland's performance is good, and "Terry Gilliam is an incredible storyteller." You give this film ONE STAR, but say, "The only rightly-satisfying elements of Tideland are its camerawork and its acting." Uh, what? So you give props to the acting, to the creativity of it, the imagination of it, and you say: "The young Jodelle Ferland takes a gigantic step away from the horror movie Silent Hill earlier this year and puts on a deep-south accent and imaginative mindset. Separately, Brendan Fletcher contributes a noteworthy, strikingly realistic portrayal of a quite retarded Dickens." And yet these are the two main performances in a film where there are only six characters. But it's the worst movie of the year? The funny thing is, you say all this, and then you trash it for the only reason that it's boring. You articulate nothing at all except the most simple-minded grunt of someone who just can't own up to the fact that the film wasn't the film that you wanted to see. Too bad for you, but your review stinks of nothing more than the worst kind of self importance and seriously flawed critical evaluation. By the way, adolescents don't go to art house cinema, they play video games and feel ripped off when things aren't created to entertain them and keep them from being...BORED! God forgive.

I was about to say something along the same lines, Marlowe. What kind of serious critic responds like that to someone? Oh, and TIDELAND IS AWESOME!!!

Dear Sir! I totally disagree with your review of 'Tideland'. Giving this film a "-1/10" score shows that your opinion (because your review is just an opinion) is shadowed by some very strong emotional rejections regarding the movie - hatred, I think. Giving a movie "-1" on a 1 to 10 scale reflects no objectivity. Worst movie of the year? Please.

Billington, I'm in complete agreement with you about those other good indie films floating around, especially The Science Of Sleep. My quibble with you is that Tideland should also be on that list. You pick this masterpiece of the weird and you-ain't-quite-seen-anything-like-it as your worst movie of the year? You gotta be kidding me. Did we even see the same movie? Man oh man.

Hey, Steve, no offense, but if a film reviewer can't handle opposing viewpoints from those who don't agree with him then he wouldn't have a comments board. Anyway, 27% on rottentomatoes doesn't actually mean much because a lot of films start off with very low rankings and over the years creep up, so my advice would be to check it in a couple of years. I noticed the users rating on rottentomatoes was at 75%, but that doesn't mean much either. At IMDB the film has something like a 7.1 ranking out of 10, and, of course, I could mention that Tideland won the international critics prize at the San Sebastian Festival last year (no small award, by the way). As for my own review of Tideland, I did think it was a bit slow in the middle section. While I didn't think it was the greatest film in the world, I also didn't think it was bad to the point where it has deserved all the bile thrown its way. In truth, it's just an odd film on almost all levels. Not sure I'd want to see it again, but I really don't think it's so horrible either. Actually, it felt just like a Terry Gilliam to me, and that's usually a mixed bag. What I find most interesting, however, is that the people who hate it can't understand how anyone could love it, and the ones that love it can't understand how anyone can hate it. That alone tells me there's something interesting going in that film. As someone else on the comments board pointed out, the film did really well in Japan and drew in large crowds of teenage girls. Go figure. Still, the whole "boring" issue as a way to dismiss the movie seems a little lame to me, only because I can think of a lot of great films from the past that have pushed the limits on the boring meter and are still worthy of attention. I mean, almost any film by Tarkovsky makes Tideland look like a hyperkinetic affair, and yet Tarkovsky's films are incredible. The first time I saw Kurosawa's Kagamusha I thought it was a profoundly boring yawn fest, and yet after making myself sit through it a number of times over the years it has grown in strength and vision to me. More than anything, though, Tideland isn't alone in its initial hatred from critics at large. Hitchcock's Psycho had equally hateful and crushing reviews, but those times were different and such damning criticism only helped draw people into the theaters to see it. A Clockwork Orange is another visionary film that was greatly disdained when it came out, especially in the United Kingdom but now it is considered an essential chapter in Film Theory & Studies 101. In any case, sheer boredom isn't always a good gauge as to whether something is good or meaningful. I find classical music to be mind-bendingly dull and boring and, for me, pointless, and yet I can also understand that there is something there that is essential and important. Nevertheless, I should mention that I have yet to read one bad review of Tideland that illuminated something clearly about the failings of this film. If anything, the reviews have a gut-reaction quality that does a disservice to those who are looking to be informed. I've heard disgusting, boring, too weird, etc., but nothing that reads like an insightful analysis of the film. Unfortunately, the once-over review is pretty much a sign of our times, and the amount of critics out there now seem to outnumber filmmakers by the thousands. Plus, the times have changed, while I don't think artists like Terry Gilliam and David Lynch have. I think they're still doing exactly what they have always been doing, but what fuels the mainstream has shifted around them. If you go by some of the reviews, Lynch's new film The Inland Empire is getting dumped on with the same kind zeal as has been dealt Tideland. Lastly, I should point out something that did strike me as being important to understand Tideland on some level, and yet I haven't read a review where it was addressed: As Gilliam is using Alice in Wonderland as an influence, he obviously made an effort to move the narrative in the same manner as Lewis Carroll had done with his Alice books. In other words, there isn't really a plot in the Alice books, but, rather, Alice drifts from situation to situation which grow increasingly odd and grotestque and fantastic as the various unreleated moments unfold. In fact, Gilliam did it right, even if it feels like he did it wrong; by that, I mean, he was faithful to both Lewis Carroll and the source novel for Tideland in making the main character the plot, as opposed to having the plot dictate the actions and events of the story. This is rather something rare in modern cinema, and as a result it makes for a confusing experience for many viewers who aren't capable of viewing things from such an angle. Otherwise, I believe Alex was being honest in his review, although I can be counted among those who don't feel it was a very insightful or fair review. Plus, proclaiming something at the "worst" of anything does seem unfair. Tideland has its moments, and what's there is not without value.

I saw Tideland yesterday and I can honestly say I don't know what to make of it. I'm a bit stunned by it and it will probably be a while before I can make up my mind if I liked it or didn't. One thing I can say is that it wasn't anything like I was expecting, but it wasn't like anything I've seen before either. At the moment I'm on the fence. However, if anyone wants the exact opposite take on Tideland than the worst movie of the review on filmnet, go to UberCine (http://www.ubercine.com/Tideland-G.html) and read where it gets praised as the best movie of the year. Strange days we're in.

Man you have to get another job, you don't have any perception of movie quality.. tideland is a Masterpiece. u suck

You state the film is boring over and over, but just that it IS, not HOW it is boring. Back up your statements, or else you'll get people who will bicker. So... How was it boring? And negative one stars? Christ, man. Did this film his a nerve for you? Seems like it.

Tideland isn't the worst movie this year. Not at all. Not by a long shot. Not even close. And Kuala L., the reason the critics are dumping on the flick is because anyone who wants to be a "professional" critic belongs to a certain mindset that is fairly bland by nature. Honestly, tell me one film critic in the last twenty-five years that has created anything of value or meaning for the masses (film reviews don't count, by the way)? Most of them have forgotten where the word "critic" comes from or what being critical about something means. These days it's all slash and dash writing without an ounce of true critical reasoning involved, and if a movie is remotely challenging, way out of the box, or, god forbid, 'boring' instead of all pizza & fairy tales then they can't stand it.

That's got to be one of the most immature ratings I've ever read. -1? What is that? Ok, so you didn`t like the film personally, but aren`t critics also ment to kind of give an objective review? And even if you hate the film more than most, how can you justify a -1 for Tideland, comparing other bad films. I would sure like to know what you gave "House Of The Dead", because that`s what I would call a crappy film. You say that the camera work is good, which it is. You say that the acting is good, which it also is. Shouldn`t that alone be enough to at least put it one or two numbers up? Just because your square brain can`t handle surrealism and imagination, doens`t give you the right to trash it so horribly. All critics should consider that you are often commenting on peoples souls and life work. It doesn`t cost much to have some respect. Just because it`s not for you, does NOT make it a bad film. Your review does make you a BAD reviewer, though. I think (and hope) that this was a shot in the leg, and a career suicide for you. (If you can even call being a critic a job) Like Joey in FRIENDS said; Critics are usually wannabes and failures within the area they criticise. You should check out the IMDB.com rating.

in all fairness, "Tideland" made an Entertainment Weekly critic's list for top ten worst movie of the year. It's in the latest issue with the Grey's Anatomy cast on the cover. I mean check out Rotten Tomatoes 25% positive reviews- respected critics blasting it over and over with, "ugly", "unwatchable" "excruciating bore" etc. You can easily dismiss these critics as idiots, but do you bother to write personal attacks to each and every one of them?

Using Rotten Tomatoes as means to gauge a film is not a good idea. Tideland got 25% positive, but if you take the time to read the so-called "negative" reviews, you'll see a good number of them are ambiguous about whether they liked the film a lot or didn't, and that is apparently something Rotten Tomatoes doesn't take into account. As for the reviews that clearly hated it, please read them and you'll see that, aside from two by my count, they not only say approximately the same things--"unwatchable", "boring", "creepy", "ends fittingly with a train wreck"--but also seem to suggest that these reviewers are taking their cues from each other. Critical circle jerking is nothing new, but maybe it's time people stopped pretending that the vast majority of film critics function independantly of what their peers think; in other words, more often than not, they belong to a kindered mindset and rarely stray from the pack. Oh, and Tideland was great, by the way. It's already becoming a cult classic, something that neither wishful thinking to the contrary or ill-pondered reviews can change.

Actually, I wasn't attacking Alex, nor was I saying he didn't have a right to hate Tideland. I was simply pointing out that film reviews and places like Rotten Tomatoes aren't exactly the best gauge for judging the merits of a given film (something, by the way, you also pointed out in your own roundabout way above). I find it strange, however, that you find it important to defend Alex when this is a forum intended for discussion about reviews that are written here, and nowhere does it say that only people who agree with one point of view or another can post here. I wasn't aware that I was only supposed to sing this critic's praises, or decline to offer my own opinion about what has clearly been an ongoing discussion here before my arrival. So thanks for flipping me the metaphorical puppet bird, although I won't return the favor. Perhaps if you wish to champion Alex you might do it in a manner that was more befitting of an adult, because otherwise your defensive-ness tends to underscore the overall childish nature of the very review and reviewer in question.

Yes, I have read the other posts here. Some are just downright dumb and unkind, on both sides of the coin. Others, like the one posted by Jaques St. James on October 30, 2006, was well worth the time it took to read it, and Kuala L. on November 5, 2006 raised a few interesting ideas that no one else saw fit to address. Still, yes, some of the posts here are mean spirited, but only a bit more so than the one you directed at me earlier (and I certainly didn't post with ill will in mind). But I get the feeling that while a lot of the digs at Alex seem personal, they are really in response to his review and nothing else. If Alex has conviction about the validity of his opinion/review then whatever is thrown back at him should be like water off a duck's back. So Alex has had his say, now others are having their say...hence the comments page. If nothing else, it means there are people who are reading his review which, I suspect, is better than no one reading it at all. Perhaps, though, if Alex must be defended, he might should do it for himself. Anyway, glad we're having a discussion, and I apologize for assuming you were being metaphorical. And, in turn, I forgive you for assuming I'm a "sir."

I think the folks over at DVD Up Close best summed up the general critical reaction to this film in The States, with Jake Barningham writing: "It was actually really embarrassing to see such extremely underdeveloped reactions come out of the so-called professional (mostly middle-aged male) film critics. Frankly, they made fools of themselves. Of course, I guess I wouldn't react very kindly to a filmmaker (presumably my age, if I were a middle aged film critic) beautifully articulating his disdain for adulthood and its increasingly absurd mentality. With Tideland, Terry Gilliam showed the world the simplest of truths: We are all weak children; incapable of escaping our own fantasy world which guards us from knowledge we deem too unpleasant for assimilation. Judging by our reactions to his film, he is 100% right. Time is a miracle worker when it comes to these little annoyances though, and I'm certain that in a few years, critical opinion will reverse itself and new eyes will look upon our initial reaction to this film and wonder (in befuddled astonishment I imagine) why each and every single negative review for this film stopped exactly where exhaustive analysis should have begun." Well put, I thought. Both Barningham's and Sara Freeman's perspectives on TIDELAND can be found here (along with at least one reviewer who disagreed about the film): http://dvdupclose.com/?m=200612

This movie is SICK.

Alex, as long as you're highlighting in power red your contributions to the comments board, why don't you fess up and highlight the 'Marty McFly' comments.

it was too effing weird. Someone explain to me what it means, besided being twisted I mean. I think a run over raccoon nailed to a cross eating peanut butter with a fork is unique, weird, maybe even art, but its meaningless. Still, did watch it. Sort of. All in all, its just weird. But thats just my opinion [ not ].

One of the BEST movies ever. I dont think u saw the movie in the first place.

So I guess you only saw like two movies in 2006, otherwise your review just makes no sense. I don't know if it's sad or funny that you thought TIDELAND was worse than Big Mama's House. Hopefully you'll be able to re-examine Gilliam's film at some future point and realize you might have been a wee bit too knee-jerky in your assessment of it. At least I'd expect a "good" critic to realize he or she isn't always right, sort of like how Leonard Maltin originally gave "Taxi Driver" one star (or maybe it was one and a half) in his 1979 Film Guide and slowly tweeked the stars up in subsequent editions.

First off, I want to say that dumping on someone because they are a critic isn't really fair, so people lay off Alex a little, even though I agree this review wasn't very useful or, frankly, very fair. And to Alex...I listened a while ago to the podcast where TIDELAND was discussed and I heard you (or someone with you) dismiss people who defend this film as "fanboys" which isn't all that cool either, especially since people often like a given thing for a multitude of different reasons. It sounded, too, that you were somewhat bothered by what you viewed as personal attacks on this comments board, but come on, if you're gonna dish it out on some level you shouldn't be surprised if it gets thrown back at you. I also gotta chime in and point out that all this stuff about TIDELAND being universally hated by critics isn't totally true. The Japan Times gave it 4 out of 5 stars. In the UK, there was the The Guardian ("Rarely has there been such an unsentimental, unflinching portrayal of a fraught childhood on screen."), UK Times ("It's not always comfortable to watch but there is a twisted genius at work that makes Tideland an unforgettable experience."), The Telegraph ("It's safe to say that Tideland is not like any other movie you'll see all year."), and The Scotsman ("In many ways Tideland is pure uncut Gilliam, a jarring blend of Gothic Americana and Victorian English fairy fantasy.... It is a hallucinatory exploration of childhood imagination and survival."), as well as glowing BBC Radio 1 review. And that's not all. Still, none of these reviews--I think--have been tallied up in Rotten Tomatoes, even though they come from a higher pedigree of reviewing than a lot of the online sites that get recognized there. Furthermore, the friggin' flick WON the esteemed FIPRESCI Prize, selected by an international jury of critics that, in their award statement, said: "Our jury focused on the international competition and found Terry Gilliam's Tideland to be the best film of the selection." The jury consisted of Andrei Plakhov, Russia, President (Kommersant), Julio Feo Zarandieta, France (Radio France Internationale), Wolfgang Martin Hamdorf, Germany (filmdienst), Massimo Causo, Italy (Corriere Del Giorno), Sergi Sanchez, Spain (La Razon). Those guys are hardly lightweights, yet their praise of the film is never mentioned anywhere in the press, or, again, on highly-regarded yet wishy-washy Rotten Tomatoes site. Anyway, for those who are dumping on critics please keep in mind that some of the best of them weighed in on the side of Gilliam's vision, including Entertainment Weekly critic Clark Collis who scored the film a "B" and Chicago Tribune critic Michael Wilmington. But, in the end, it's the serious film buffs, not us professional critics, who will ultimately decide the long-term fate of TIDELAND, or what IFC's Michael Atkinson recently called "a snark-hunted freak just waiting for its historical moment, decades from now, when someone makes a case for it as a neglected masterpiece." As it stands now, user "critics" on Rotten Tomatoes have lifted the film to the "fresh" category (their reviews far exceeding all the professionally published reviews that exist about the film) and the same goes for over at IMDB.com (it has been sitting at around 6.7 percent for months now). What did I think of TIDELAND? To be honest, I found it a tad dull, but not uninspired or unoriginal. While it's understandable that comparisons would be made to PAN'S LABYRINTH, Gilliam's script and the novel that it was based on were around long before PAN'S was even an idea. Nevertheless, it certainly wouldn't rank in my TOP FIVE films of 2006, nor would it hover around the bottom of my list for that year; it was just too unique, strange, and disquieting to get castaway so easily, at least by me. My gut feeling is that time will be much kinder to it, especially when Gilliam is no longer among us and his body of work is viewed as whole. Otherwise, I think the film might have been more of an attention grabber if Mr. G had maybe trimmed out 10 to 15 minutes in the middle, while also adding the short deleted scene where Jeliza-Rose has the flashback of finding her doll heads in the thrift store bend. That's my two cents...

Well, i know this is probable not important. I watch movies just like everyone else. Ummm... this movie... wtf?!?!? I love Jeff Bridges and his style of movies. I thought they did excellent acting. The girl was amazing. I thought all the characters where all well done.... but, i had NO idea what the hell was going on... the train wreck? the ending? come on! what the hell was that all about! I can understand art and actaully enjoy its many differnt quality's... the movie was actually really disappointing... what was with the ending? it didn't even make sense. I think the writter focused on more of the twisted sceniro's then actually attempting to have a decent ending. I enjoyed the twist and all... but the ending was poorly put together... why? beacuse there was NONE! If your interested in a twisted movie... watch it, but if you want a great ending... skip it... no point and I agree with the critict.... poor ending!

Reviewer, you bore me. Enough said.

Jeeez. If you like Babel, certainly you won't find Gilliam's work unique.

This movie is repulsive, meaningless, anyone can vomit on a beautiful painting, it doesnt mean to say the two mixed together makes art, catch my drift?

Your review reflects a sort of pre-calculated hangup. Nothing wrong with that per se, except that as a reviewer I think you ought to dig much deeper. With that said, the movie was was brilliant.

It was not quite as enjoyable as some of Gilliam's other films, but I was relentlessly intrigued throughout. I was able to shift myself to that childlike fantasy place where Jeliza-Rose escaped to, recalling my own childhood days of fantasy. Of course, mine was no where as twisted and disturbing as this movie portrays, but for that reason alone I found this film a delight to watch. It is definitely not for everyone.

Absolutely brilliant film, although at the same time quite disturbing, your review on the other hand is pants, you don't speak of any of the deeper meaning in the film, you call Jodelle Ferlands acting "marginally skillful" both gross injustices to the film and actress. Its not everyones cuppa tea but if you are any kind of film fan you will see its well filmed, acted and thought out. My advice to you is to watch the latest Nicolas Cage or Fast n Furious movie it is all you deserve and probably the highest level of cinema you will appreciate, or for our sakes at least review only films of that calibre as you are clearly incapable of reviewing mastery such as this.

I know this is like 4 years too late, but I don't care; I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, man. I cried like a baby when I saw this movie, and I've never cried for a movie before. I guess it really struck deep down into the kid-in-me chord, since I'm the Peter Pan Complex type of person. No movie I've ever seen has ever been as honest, emotional, and heart-wrenching as Tideland. It's a film that I identify with on a level that I've never felt for any other movie before, and I've seen tons of movies and have been deeply moved by a handful of them, but none as much as this. I'm also a big fan of all of Gilliam's films, but for me, this is by far his most emotional and creative work. If you want to dislike it, that's fine, but if you do, it's because you just don't f*cking get it, man. I assume that most of the idiots making up the majority of movie-watchers would agree with you, since Hollywood has them so accustomed to the pieces of cinematic fecal matter that they excrete year by year. I guess they've all forgotten that film is a form of art, and that some films are not made for entertainment purposes, but to make you think, make you feel, make you reflect. To compare it to music, for example, I can see how a reviewer like you would give a new 50 Cent or Justin Timberlake album 20 out of 10 stars, commending them for whatever stupid bullsh*t you could come up with, and then review a new Tool album, for example, with -5 stars, calling it "weird, boring, distasteful and aimless", just because they're making something different that doesn't coincide with your watered-down mainstream meme- and paycheck-induced opinion. I thought Tideland was such a breath of fresh air from the crap we've all become so accustomed to. It's the most realistic horror film I've ever seen; it's easy to make a film like Saw, when you rely on gore to scare people, but it's a true feat of the imagination to make something so dark, so bleak, so miserable, so funny, so sweet, and so fucking beautiful simultaneously, and with almost no violence at all. It depicts a situation so unlike those seen in any horror movies I've seen, where that which induces the fear is not a presence, a creature, a killer, or a horde of zombies, but a stark and terrifying reality that is probably the life experience of many thousands of people out there. It's a window into the lives of many unfortunate wanderers who've been forced to endure similar situations; and many of them, MOST of them, were not as fortunate as Jeliza Rose, who is taken underwing by that woman at the end. I think a very small percentage of people will truly understand this movie, but because it surpasses the limits of the mainstream human mind to comprehend a work of art like this. You're all so used to your tasteless romantic comedies and your bullsh*t bad boy action flicks that you don't even know art when you see it anymore. You're all so used to your happy pampered little lives sheltered from the cold, harsh truth of reality that exists out there that it's like an insult to your ego and your presuppositions to experience something of this nature. And I think that's even more frightening and depressing than the situation portrayed in Tideland. Shame on you for this immature and destitute review. Whether you like it or not, this movie is going to go down in history as a cult classic. It's a true diamond in the rough for cinema, and I don't think that this unique type of mood or message will be easily replicated in future films. Oh, and Jodelle Ferland f*ckin acts CIRCLES around most Hollywood actors working nowadays.

And I want to add as a sick person I feel I am right now! I got so sick who I continue feel sick with this garbage tideland! Where are we going? where we have our minds if we have any mind at all! Shame to all of U who U did not reject at once on movie (if that thing is movie) as this movie! I got so sick Where U have your minds my friends!?!?!?!?