MovieChat Forums > Tideland (2006) Discussion > Absolutely boring

Absolutely boring

posted 15 years ago by miizsasha
29 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS!

I found Tideland absolutely boring. The point of Jeliza becoming friends with Dell and Dickens didn't go anywhere. In the end, Dickens eventually sets off his dynamite to kill the Monster Shark, which in reailty is a passenger train, and caused a train wreck. Then.. Jeliza finds her way to the wreck, Dell is looking for Dickens, a bit of blah blah blah, and then fire flies.

But before the snooze fest ended, in no particular order...

Jeliza and Dickens become "silly kissers", Dell and Dickens preserves Jeliza's dad, they all tidy up the grandma's house, have Thumper for dinner, Dell bangs the delivery boy, there's a bee story, a squirrel's life, four doll heads, and some more bing bong gong with imagination in between.

Point is, nearly two hours of my Sunday afternoon was wasted.

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 15 years ago

I agree, it was one of the most frustrating films i've ever seen.

[–] projectcyclops 15 years ago

I've been making my way through Gilliam's films since the release of Imaginatrium of Dr. Parnosus, and I really enjoyed Brazil, Munchausen and 12 Monkeys, and even Brothers Grimm was better than critics initially wrote... but yes, Tideland is a tough watch. In fact I've just switched off after an hour on the realisation that there is another hour to go. As much as I admire Terry, this seriously lacking in the wit and pace of his other films, it just feels like it's a dark, uncomfortable trip through a story that's a little indulgent. I watched the intro on the dvd from the man himself and he actually says that "Some of you won't like this film". So he at least admits it might be a love it or hate it movie.

---

Right. Well, I have to - I have to go now, Duane, because I, I'm due back on the planet Earth.

[–] kreoli 15 years ago

It's not a love it or hate it movie. Just look at the voting charts.

[–] Wombstar 15 years ago

Not for everyone tastes, slow places, you have to be in the right mood for it, its not Acton packed, laugh a minute lots of ooohs and awws

But it certainly wasn't boring.
I describe it as being interesting.

A Tim Burton Fan

[–] maxpogues 15 years ago

Americka umobolna šitina..
Inace T.Giliam ima odlican rad kamere.. ali su mu filmovi gomiletina gluposti..
jerbo oce covek da bude i režiser i scenarista.
Svaka cast na masterpisu "Fisher King" (jedini za koji on nije pisao scenario).
Kada bi izabrao neke dobre scenarije pravio bi verovatno jako lepe filmove.
Ovako se kaci na sranja, svaki film mu ukljucuje ludaka/ludake iz ludare (jer mu je to blisko i nekako zhivotna preokupacija - valjda baca svrshketu na to).

[–] cassbtt 15 years ago

Hmmm, not boring to me.

I was surprised at how restrained the visuals were, given it was a Gilliam movie. Well, it was filmed in plain old Saskatchewan, after all. Plain and flat.

But being a Gilliam fan, there was absolutely no chance I was going to turn it off. And when the cable went at about the 90% point (as Dickens was having his fit), I just about had a fit myself.

Thank heavens for YouTube, and I was able to finish it there.

You know, maybe it's my sense of what's in Gilliam's soul, but this guy was not going to leave us dissatisfied, with regard to the little girl. As soon as she left the house and saw the train wreck, I was sure how it was going to end. That somehow something positive was going to come out of this gruesomeness.

And I was surprisingly close in my guess!

No matter how strange a film is, if there's empathy in at least one character, it can still work.

The kid was simply marvelous, and I was quietly cheering her on throughout the whole movie.

Links to "Twelve Monkeys" Pages
www.tempesta-tormenta.ca

[–] jesatsu 14 years ago

Prijatelju, nemas pojma. Sakrij se negdi ispod kakvog kamena zbog gomile gluposti koje si napisao.

[–] Mr Blue-4 15 years ago

To the OP (and others)- you completely missed the whole point of the film.

I just watched it for the 2nd time, and it should be pretty clear that the film is done primarly from the heightened perspective of a 9 year old girl. A 9 year old with a great immangination and very little adult supervision.

If you're trying to grapple with it as a story that starts here and ends there, if you're looking for the "point" of things that happen, you're clearly not allowing yourself to watch "Tideland" from the correct perspective.

I didn't find it boring at all and hope everyone will catch up with what Gilliam has done here as time goes on.

[–] The_Great_Ahmed_Kahn 15 years ago

this is more of an art flick than an action film and is too wierd for your common folk (hence the rating).

if you're more of an die hard/2012/armageddon sort of lughead, this film might not suit you.

personally, i think this is without a doubt the most brilliant thing terry gilliam has done since brazil.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dysania90 15 years ago

I really liked this film, and I think it might be Gilliam's best film.

Since I know the internet consist of very impatient people the first paragraph is more in depth so just skip it if you lack patience ^^

But I can see how you can not like it. I still think it's a brilliant film on these merits (if I can use this here); The movie is done from the perspective of this little child, and you see everything from her view, and it's just done so great. I mean you really connect with the child, and see things the way she sees it. Yes it's obviously quite "disgusting", in a lack of a better word, when she plays silly kisses. But you can also see the innocence she experiences. And you get these to versions of the same thing when you watch the film, and you don't quite know how to act. This alone makes the film great. Then you have all the other things. Stunning visuals (I mean Gilliam) and fantastic acting, and i would like to point to Tropic Thunder here. There's a quote in the movie (several) regarding playing mentally challenged, I don't remember the whole thing, but they point to the fact that if you play too much "retarded" you wont be acknowledge for it. The actor here takes it all out instead of having some restraints on it. So in some ways it becomes almost ridiculous but still really "disturbing" (probably not the best word) and fitting for the film. And obviously Fantastic acting from Jodelle. The movie is long, yes. But the movie would be terrible at a fast pace. The slow pacing does soo much for the film.

So I get the whole "boring" thing. What I don't get is the fact that people insist that this is a bad movie. And I can't see how you can feel this is a bad movie? I mean you can't really give a movie this much trash for being long, seriously.

My point is I can "understand" why people have this sort of pretentious way of talking back because the fact is that people treats this movie like it's the worst crap ever made, and they do this based only on the pacing of it. This makes you (read: general) look unintelligent and ignorant even though most of you are absolutely not. This upsets me, it might not be the best movie out there. But it's really *beep* good!

Also, My country is not an English speaking one, so excuse my bad grammar or bad spelling :)

P.S: The movie is really good
P.P.S: Seriously
P.P.P.S: Ok last time now, but, I mean come on... It's art.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dysania90 15 years ago

Hehe yeah I know, that's why i typed the read: general after, but I guess I didn't make it clear who I was talking about :/ But yeah I agree with you on the pretentious thing. But like I said, when you have this kind of arguments you tend to get the 2 opposites and the opposite of some of this; "Worst movie ever, couldn't bare see through this *beep* awfulness that is this crap movie" is "I am intelligent and get this movie, you don't because you are stupid"...

And I get why they do it, because if you would look at this movie completely objectively (which you kinda can't but for arguments sake lets say you can, btw is this the right word? :/) it's really not in anyway a bad movie, so when someone goes and pushes their buttons and saying they hate it, they defend it. And often in these "I'm better than you" kind of way...

My response was not aimed at you though, I more or less tried to continue your response i guess if that makes sense

[–] skywestobsessed 13 years ago

I'm glad I finally found a post on here where someone said that... I agree, this was his godamned masterpiece in my opinion. It truly frightens me that anyone could not understand it, or be put off by it... This movie actually changed my life and the way I think about things. That's a powerful thing, and a powerful piece of art that he's created.

Also I really fell in love with everyone who helped make this film. That's something you don't get from a lot of movies, the feeling that the filmmakers really cared about what they were doing and threw themselves into it. I would be surprised if anyone on the crew was doing it for the paycheck. I would eat human poo if it meant I could work for Terry Gilliam. Such an honor!

[–] ryan-1218 14 years ago

Why did Dickens have to be retarded?

[–] PommeraieVasundhara 14 years ago

I truly appreciate what some people here are saying about "missing the point of the film". But I really didn't enjoy it. It was drifting, the events unfurling tediously without any sense of destination or purpose. All the gas jokes and leathery corpses just made me feel physically sick. The only shining point of the movie is Jodelle Ferland, who I thought was simply gorgeous (by the way I'm a woman, and either way I wouldn't use the word in a way that denotes sexual interest). She's charismatic, vivacious and impossible to dislike. She's the only thing that kept this film going. Everything else-even the story, isolated-was just too "eccentric" and deliberately weird for my taste. This crazy, born-again woman who taxiderms her own mother and has an obsessive hatred of bees? This retarded "man-child" whose every second of screen time was completely purposeless? It was just too much and yet too little.

"A film is-or should be-more like music than like fiction..." Stanley Kubrick

[–] marousha_n 11 years ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410764/board/nest/225431906?d=233294346#2 33294346

"Hollywood is run by small-minded people who like chopping the legs off creative people" T.Gilliam

[–] semprini20 14 years ago

I agree, I just felt this movie was really slow, it felt like a four hour movie, a lot of going outside, going inside, going outside again and I felt a lot of the scenes were redundant. I also have a real issue with movies where there's a lot of whispering. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT ANYONE IS SAYING, I HOPE THAT WASN'T CRUCIAL TO THE PLOT!!!

I love Terry Gilliam, I think he's completely original and underrated, and I look forward to his next movie, but this one just fell short for me.