comment #1

p.Vice says ...

Fear & Loathing is actually a great film if the viewer has any experience with the various substances abused during the course of the film. Once we get you smoked up you'll think it's the best film of the 90s.

comment #2

Alan Cerny says ...

Curious on your thoughts for BRAZIL, which I watch at least once a year and consider a masterpiece.

Love MUNCHAUSEN, love LOATHING, love MONKEYS, never saw TIDELAND.

comment #3

markj says ...

MUNCHAUSEN is a wonderful film, full of wit, imagination and heart. And THE FISHER KING seems to have been forgotten these days, another wonderful film.

comment #4

JD says ...

Jeff, you're confusing art and commerce. Are you criticizing Gilliam for not selling tickets or for making bad films? Obviously both criticisms apply in the case of Tideland, but The Brothers Grimm grossed more than $100 million worldwide, in spite of its lack of artistic merit. As for Fear and Loathing, I don't think it made much money, but the praise for that film -- unpleasant and grotesque as it (deliberately) is -- outweighs the disdain at this point. Hell, The Criterion Collection released it on DVD. That gives the filmt automatic artistic street-cred in my opinion (and yes, I know they also released two Michael Bay films, but those are clearly an anomaly).

comment #5

Walter Sobchak says ...

I hear you, Brother Wells. I've often said that there is no filmmaker whom I've wanted to like more than Gilliam. (He was a Pythonite, for crying out loud!) But it ain't there. I like Fear and Loathing but that's more due to Depp and Del Toro and weed than it is Gilliam. In fact, I would blame Terry for making it about 15 minutes longer than it needs to be.

Hated Munchausen. Always pretended to like Brazil more than I really did, (great first twenty minutes)....

12 Monkeys.... okay..... Fisher King good until Robin Williams starts jerking off about knights and castles and shit...

Aye. I'm with you on the title of this new one. Egads.

comment #6

corey3rd says ...

Terry isn't a distributor's dream promoter either.

comment #7

Marty Melville says ...

Some of the pre-release angst must come from that verkakte title...

how many people are gonna see The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus on the poster and think Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium?

comment #8

bluefugue says ...

My favorite Gilliam film is still "Time Bandits" -- a wonderful adolescent adventure featuring a great lead performance by David Rappaport. And Ralph Richardson as God is priceless.

comment #9

chicbn872 says ...

I really liked "Fear & Loathing" when it first hit theaters. I swore up & down how great it is. That was 1998 & I was 21 years old, in college, smoking weed on a daily basis.

Now, as an adult that has been lucid for five years...that movie sucks. It's a glorification of drug use & exceptionally bad behavior. I don't even know what the point of the entire exercise is.

comment #10

Chapman Carruthers says ...

My friend and I shroomed on the night of The 4th. Right as the goods were kicking in, we were standing outside of this werid barlounge, loungebar, the poster for which advertised multiple rooms of excotic entertainment. We went in. We heard the first room before we arrived. Loud thumping beats arranged to spliced images from Bollywood films. Lots of Indian guys in suits standind around a pool of sunbathing women. It felt like Scarface made by the director of an early Brittany Spears video. The next room was showing TIME BANDITS, a film I've never seen. Bollywood or Time Bandits, Bollywood or Time Bandits. We went with the latter. I sat down right as the little guys were locked into the swining cages. That scene took me from pure bliss to sniveling, terrified, wigged out of my mind.

Moral of the story: That's the last time I ever watch a Terry Gilliam movie.

comment #11

rr3333 says ...

Sadly, Terry Gilliam is the poster child for washed up directors (along with Stone, Coppola and Levinson (as I mentioned in the 'W' thread).

I do have to say how Jeff Bridges was robbed in 'Fisher King' of an acting award. Great performance. Great film.

I love NY in June (how about you?).

comment #12

hatchetface says ...

I laugh at the post which criticizes FEAR & LOATHING for its "glorification" of drug use. Hah. Ahah hah. Ahahahahaha.

comment #13

Jesse Perry says ...

I saw Fear & Loathing by myself during a matinee. To me, that movie IS acid: A hyped-up, intense start with great visuals, then after a while you're exhausted and just want the goddamn thing to end.

comment #14

C-PhreekII says ...

Sadly have to concur with Wells on this one, Fate has not been kind to Gilliam and probably robbed him of his best years. I see Tideland on the shelf at the library every time I peruse the DVDs and even free I haven't been able to muster up the interest.

When you look at his early work (especially if you've seen the various interviews with him in his home filled with fantastic bits of stuff), you get this hopeful surge of anticipation for what else will come. One really has to sadly consider what the Harry Potter films would have been like had Rowling shown some backbone and stuck up for her first choice.

And where's the love for Time Bandits? It still has not been equaled as a modern fable for children or those who want to feel like one for 2 hours. I think I still push on walls to see if they will lead to a portal back through history.

JD - I think you're confusing profit and deceptively large box office. The Brothers Grimm did indeed make $105M worldwide (and only $38M in the North America), but the damn thing cost $80M.

It's funny, I was surfing around to get that figure and was reminded that the amazingly mediocre Ehren Kruger wrote Grimm and then just a few hyperlinks later found that Gilliam has criticized the script several times. I remember when I was watching the film thinking it might look like Gilliam film, but sure wasn't scripted like one. Shame he couldn't patch things up with Charles McKeown in time to save it.

comment #15

sutter kane says ...

I put Gilliam in roughly the same category as David Lynch. Both amazing visual stylists, but if you just give them a few mil and send them off to make a movie, what they come back with is often borderline unintelligible (Fear and Loathing, Lost Highway). If, on the other hand, you put them on a studio-type project with a producer that's going to make them deliver a film with a comprehensible narrative, more often than not what they come back is with closer to brilliant- 12 Monkeys, Fisher King, Straight Story, even Dune, which is as good an adaptation as could be made from the novel (take heed, Peter Berg).

comment #16

D.Z. says ...

"It said buyers were wary of Gilliam's latest, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, despite the presence of Heath Ledger in this, his very last film."

Screw the buyers. Those idiots invested in Eragon and Baby Geniuses 2.

"Sad to say, the signs and indications are that Gilliam is probably over. The last film of his that I even half-liked was Twelve Monkeys, which came out 13 years ago."

What? No love for Fear and Loathing, even though that took up a big chunk of that crappy HST documentary?

"The most interesting thing he made before that was The Adventures of Baron Munchausen ('88), which I loved in certain respects but nonetheless made me fidget around in my seat and constantly scratch myself. "

With the exception of that Robin Williams cameo, I loved that sucker when I was a kid. Great set designs and non-spoon fed writing. It was obviously going to fail, due to audiences' lack of familiarity with the main character, but it was what Nightmare Before Christmas should've been, if Burton wasn't starting to get lazy around that time.

"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas ('98) was a chore to sit through -- be honest."

Not as much as Gonzo, which is basically the Criterion dvd of Fear and Loathing set to the same music from Forrest Gump.

"And Tideland ('05) was sheer torture."

I haven't seen Tideland, but Gilliam admitted that it was a "love it/hate it" type of film.

"The thing no one wants to admit is that the more recent ones have been hell to sit through."

I might agree with you on Grimm, but I'm not sure how much Harvey interfered with the final product, so...

mark: I liked Fisher King, but that one's a bit long with Williams' hammy acting.

JD: Grimm made money mostly due to Damon. From what I heard, he wanted Depp to be in it, but Harvey was in his "ego before common sense" phase, and lost him. Still, if Depp can make Sweeney Todd profitable, and he's in the new Gilliam film, I think it's the investors that are being short-sighted this time.

Walter: "I like Fear and Loathing but that's more due to Depp and Del Toro and weed than it is Gilliam. In fact, I would blame Terry for making it about 15 minutes longer than it needs to be."

Have you read the book?

Marty: "how many people are gonna see The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus on the poster and think Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium?"

Well, they seemed to have no problem funding that turkey, even though Portman was the only draw. No, I think they'll forget about the similarities in names when they see Depp and Ledger on the poster.

chic: "It's a glorification of drug use & exceptionally bad behavior."

Um, no it's not, since the leads are clearly shells of themselves. Now Bush's entire adulthood is a different story.

Chapman: Yes, because the purpose of every kids' film
should be for you to get high to it, like Willy Wonka.

rr: How many washed-up directors can still get a strong cast like that?

comment #17

C-PhreekII says ...

Just when I was worried my post might be running a bit long, here comes our favorite OCD poster child to show everyone how to really glaze over eyes...

comment #18

Jack Lint says ...

I'll be the one to step up in defense of Tideland. Admittedly, it's a challenge to sit through (especially on the first viewing), but the end result is so effective and devastating that I feel it ranks with Brazil as one of his best, most personal works.

What makes Tideland so great is the same thing that makes Fear & Loathing so effective/polarizing. Gilliam's intention is to take you into the mindset of the characters, through points exhilarating and exhausting. As I believe Roger Ebert put it in his review, the book was about the trip to Vegas - the movie is the trip to Vegas.

comment #19

Chapman Carruthers says ...

Well, if that post isn't mlldly incoherent.

DZ, for the sake of those who are interested in reading your posts, any chance you can break them up into smaller pieces or stick to, and expound upon, one of your ideas?

comment #20

Yves says ...

Gilliam over? What are you talking about? Gilliam was great in Lost in La Mancha! He just needs a reality show on E! and he'll be back in business! Throw Stone, Coppola, and Lucas in there and you'll have the best Surreal life since the 3rd season.

comment #21

Bocephus says ...

Tideland isn't a movie to be dismissed without seeing.

comment #22

C-PhreekII says ...

Chapman Carruthers - dear god man, don't encourage him to expound anything.

In fact, I was hoping perhaps we could get Wells to once a day post a Tarantino update, distract him with a shiny object kind of thing. Either that or simply give him his own blog space on HE, he so clearly loves the look of his own words.

comment #23

rr3333 says ...

DZ:

Big stars like doing films with Gilliam or Woody Allen or Francis Coppola because of the directors long ago 'past glory' or to tell their future grand children that they worked with the best (even if their best was a distant memory at the time of making those films).

Do you think people will remember Woody Allen movies and immediately think of Scarlett Johanssen?!?!? OF COURSE NOT! They'll think of Diane Keaton when Woody was at the peak of his powers.

When people think of Arthur Penn, will they think of 'Penn & Teller Get Killed' instead of 'Bonnie & Clyde' !?!??!

Anyway, I feel bad for Gilliam to a certain degree, because when we was at his peak, studios interfered with him like crazy, which may have contributed to eventual career burnout.

comment #24

corey3rd says ...

did you know that most acid fatalities occur when the user is choked to death since they can't stop telling everyone about everything they're seeing even when we don't give a crap.

comment #25

AndrewOwens says ...

The title is eerily similar to "The Contrabulous Fabtraption of Professor Horatio Hufnagel", the film Troy McClure made on The Simpsons after he became a big star.

Wish he (uh, Gilliam) had directed the Charlie Kaufman version of A Scanner Darkly. That would have been something to see.

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

rr: "Big stars like doing films with Gilliam or Woody Allen or Francis Coppola because of the directors long ago 'past glory' or to tell their future grand children that they worked with the best (even if their best was a distant memory at the time of making those films)"

Or maybe those actors like roles which don't just pigeon-hole them.

"Do you think people will remember Woody Allen movies and immediately think of Scarlett Johanssen?!?!? OF COURSE NOT! They'll think of Diane Keaton when Woody was at the peak of his powers."

Probably this generation of movie-goers will associate his films with Johanssen-which I'm sure is a reasonable trade-off for Allen. On the other hand, they'll just remember Diane Keaton for mediocre crap like "Mad Money" and "Because I Said So".

"When people think of Arthur Penn, will they think of 'Penn & Teller Get Killed' instead of 'Bonnie & Clyde' !?!??!"

No, they'll probably think, "Who's Arthur Penn?"

comment #27

Mr. Blood Vessel says ...

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas ('98) was a chore to sit through -- be honest.

true.
and maybe because it's because I've never done drugs, but I always felt it needed to be more serious bitter tone than anything.
especially the built up to the burnt out Jane Mansfield scene.

comment #28

Richardson says ...

"I don't even know what the point of the entire exercise is."

Watch the part where Thompson's writing about "the crest of the wave" and all that again. That's not the entire point, but it's a good place to start.

comment #29

Richardson says ...

I will go to bat for any Terry Gilliam movie [which is why I don't recommend them to people, because I'm biased].

I thought 'Tideland' was a masterpiece. I compare it to 'Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia' (also largely hated at first, also difficult to watch at times) -- the rare chance for a director to make a movie straight out of their own skull. In ten years, Gilliam fans will be saying, "Why can't he make personal movies like 'Tideland' anymore?" It's definitely a movie that will find its cult -- but I totally understand why it will never appeal to many people.

The only reason I can speak positively of 'Brothers Grimm', though, is because I saw an early screening of it. It was a mess, but so was the theatrical version. The difference is, it felt like a Terry Gilliam mess. Self-indulgent, and straight up and down with his sense of humor (which largely got cut out -- I swear to you, Matt Damon was very, very funny). So what happened? It seemed as if they re-cut the movie to focus on the story, which was always the least interesting part of the movie. I find it difficult to believe that Gilliam was involved in that decision or the cutting process.

I actually would concede that 'Fear and Loathing' is overrated, but only because there are some people who are stone-cold in love with it. It's really good, but it's nobody involved's best movie.

I'm glad to see some love spread for 'Fisher King', which is a great movie, with two fo the best scenes Jeff Bridges will ever perform.

comment #30

markj says ...

sutter kane: nice to see some Dune love - I saw it in the theater as a 10 year old and it blew my mind...I can fully understand why people hate it (and the movie does fall apart in the last 20 minutes or so) but there's so much in it to admire, the cinematography, the great, weird and wonderful cast, the production design, Brian Eno's haunting 'Prophecy' theme, Lynch's amazing dream sequences...it's such a bonkers and visionary work! An Hollywood thinks the director of 'The Kingdom' can do a better job? Dream on...

comment #31

BurmaShave says ...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405784,00.html

Don't care if its the worst reviewed movie of all time, this makes me want to see it now. These guys are total class.

comment #32

EOTW says ...

Before I die, I'd LOVE for someone to take a swing at GOD EMPEROR OF DUNE. It's always been my fave of the books and, for me, the true end of the series. It's a marvel and the images are with me to this day, 20 years after I first read it.

comment #33

Zoidberg says ...

The Fisher King is among my all-time favorite movies....
I've seen it at least 100 times.

But I agree that Gilliam has fallen way, waaaay off in recent years.

comment #34

cjKennedy says ...

Fear was terrific.

While I agree with Jack Lint that Tideland is devastating and one of Gilliam's most personal works, it's also brutal and nearly impossible for me to sit through.

I can admire it to a point, but it takes me places I simply don't want to go.

Still, Jeff's notion that Gilliam is over (at least in a creative sense) is the same flavor of bullshit as his claim that Wes Anderson has peaked.

comment #35

DarthCorleone says ...

Brazil is a masterpiece.

Time Bandits is a lot of fun, and it has one of my favorite endings ever. Granted, you'd have to be pretty morbid and fucked up to consider that a great ending, but those labels apply to me.

I love The Fisher King. It's such a charmer.

12 Monkeys is pretty damn great.

Overall, I have immense respect for Gilliam as a filmmaker.

All that said...

Tideland is one of the most painful viewing experiences of my life. About halfway through, it got to be some sort of masochistic challenge to finish the thing off. Yes, there is a little of the promise of Gilliam's usual visual panache, but in terms of a narrative and in terms of compelling characterization, the film offers absolutely nothing.

On the DVD, Gilliam goes so far as to give viewers a preemptive apologia. Such disclaimers are never a good sign. He urges people watching the film to think like a child - to remember what it was like to be in that frame of mind in order to understand the film.

Well, I'm nothing if not an overgrown kid. In addition, I spend lots of time with my nieces and have infinite patience - nay, not patience, adoration - for every single bit of imaginary nonsense they might say.

And yet, Tideland is like having my teeth drilled. It consists of little more than the protagonist, a little girl, prattling on for two straight hours to her imaginary friends. Yes, I get the thematic thrust: how children are capable of compensating so well in the face of tragedy, etc. But I got the message fifteen minutes into the film. Give me something else. (See Pan's Labyrinth for a film with the same message that actually gives you something interesting to watch.)

At one point once I was confident that we were both miserable, I said to the person sharing this wonderful viewing experience with me: "I think 3000 Miles To Graceland might be on TBS again." That says it all.

comment #36

Undercover Brother says ...

I hope Gilliam finds his filmmaking chops again. His unfinished disasters typically produce more interesting results than the average completed film. But to be honest his recent work has been horrible. I think the entire world is trying to forget that he made "Brothers Grimm." A total waste of an opportunity. It was without question the most forgettable thing he's ever attempted. The man simply cannot work in a contemporary studio system. And Tideland? One of the worst things ever committed to cinema. An awful experience he should be ashamed of. There was no excuse for it. I want the man who made "Fisher King" and "12 Monkeys" to return.

comment #37

Richardson says ...

"On the DVD, Gilliam goes so far as to give viewers a preemptive apologia. Such disclaimers are never a good sign."

That introduction was a part of the theatrical release.

But, on the DVD, Gilliam explains that he saw 'Unbreakable' at a film festival, and before the movie, heard Shymalaman talk about it, and thought it was great. But then, when he saw the movie without the intro, it didn't work nearly as well. So he thought that was interesting. After going through the festival process with 'Tideland', he felt that it worked better with some form of spoken introduction by him.

Of course, when you say "never a good sign", it's interesting, because I'm not familiar with any other film that ever had a spoken introduction by the director in a theater.

comment #38

Marty Melville says ...

If anything, this thread is a reminder of just how singular Gilliam's career has been... and so far there's been no mention of Monty Python and the Holy Grail or Jabberwocky.

I'd like to hear more praise for Holy Grail, simply because it is (to hijack the title of the Corman book) Brilliance on a Budget... so brilliant it makes the lack of production funds part of its plot (the Knights banging together coconuts to pass for the hoofbeats of their horses, etc.)

His budget battles of the last thirty years or so can only be described as ironic in light of those coconuts.

comment #39

ElstonGunnAICN says ...

"...I'm not familiar with any other film that ever had a spoken introduction by the director in a theater."

There's an introduction by Jean Renoir for THE RIVER on the Criterion disc, I would imagine it played in the theater.

I almost mentioned Hitchcock/PSYCHO, but that of course was the "scene of the crime" trailer. Speaking of which, anyone remember the trailer/TV ad for MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE where Stephen King told the audience "this is gonna scare the hell outta ya"?

comment #40

Yves says ...

On the subject of director's intros to films, I was going to give up on The Wire after watching the first episode of the first season on DVD, until I watched the commentary, and heard David Simon explained that the pacing was more like a novel than an episodic television series. I gave it another chance and I'm glad I did, as it's one of the greatest TV shows I've watched. Now I'm part of the long wait for the first disc of the fifth and final season. So there is something to be said about setting the audience's expectations before a film. Although I suppose you could make a case that a good director could set those expectations within the film, for example, Kubrick's 2001.

comment #41

Richardson says ...

Elston - I didn't mean to make it sound like Gilliam was an innovator (in that sense), just that it's a fairly rare situation. 'The River' is certainly good company to be in, though, if the intro did play in theaters [I know that Criterion sometimes adds optional introductions, like on 'Playtime'].

When I saw it in the theater, Hitchcock was the person the intro made me think of too. Even though it's completely different than Hitch's style, it seemed like it was a trailer for 'Tideland', or, at least, to prepare you for it.

"Although I suppose you could make a case that a good director could set those expectations within the film, for example, Kubrick's 2001."

Yves -- I'd definitely agree that it's preferable to do it that way [I know people here will give me shit for bringing it up, but I'd cite 'Juno' as a movie which does this well too, with the opening credits sequence].

comment #42

ElstonGunnAICN says ...

Oh, no, not at all, I agree with you. Those were the only examples I could think of, so it is indeed a rare thing.

If he could be as entertaining as he is in the INLAND EMPIRE extras, I think David Lynch should do an intro for every film.

comment #43

DavidF says ...

I haven't seen Gilliam's most recent films (unless you count Lost in Mancha) but he was never a big box office guy so I don't know what Wells' point is. 12 Monkeys would probably be he is only bona fide "hit," along with Fisher King I guess.

Those two pics, plus Brazil and Time Bandits are enough to show what a fine director he can be.

Fear and Loathing is a mess but what a fascinating mess. I appreciated it more on second viewing and came to feel that while the book is inherently unadaptable, he did the closest possible thing and got two amazing lead performances.

Perhaps its simplistic but one has to wonder how much of a toll battling studios and seeing productions undermined has had on him.

comment #44

DarthCorleone says ...

Richardson>> I didn't know it showed up in the theaters as well. I thought I had read somewhere that was an addition to the DVD.

All that I meant was that an apologia in advance *of anything* in general is a bad sign. I had no examples from film in mind. It shows a lack of confidence in letting the art speak for itself, or at least I thought this particular one did. Gilliam doesn't really say anything in that statement that would have changed how I felt about the film. I acknowledge I can't know that for sure, but as a Gilliam fan, I was certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If nothing else, it let me know that there were quite a few naysayers by whom Gilliam already felt pressured, and I'd say that a preponderance of negative reviews is never a very good sign either.

comment #45

Richardson says ...

"I thought I had read somewhere that was an addition to the DVD."

I saw that on Wikipedia about a month ago, and corrected it, so I'm sure it was on there for a while, probably other spots too.

"it let me know that there were quite a few naysayers by whom Gilliam already felt pressured"

I'll be honest with you -- whatever flaws the film had, it never occurred to me that any of it felt compromised at all. I believe him when he says that he felt the movie played better on the festival circuit with a spoken intro, and that he wanted to recreate that for the theatrical experience. I think it wound up that he should've adapted it more, like a play that doesn't work as a movie, but I also feel like it wouldn't have been needed if the movie had been marketed more -- it's not like anybody went into that movie knowing what to expect, since the trailer never played at all.

The thing is, I think that Gilliam doesn't understand why people don't like his movies, and really thought it would help, because he really wants people to like this movie, not just because his career is so troubled, but because his movies tend to be ripped straight from his soul in some way.

"I'd say that a preponderance of negative reviews is never a very good sign either."

I think "never" is a strong word, unless you're an extremely conservative film fan. 50%? Absolutely, no question. 75%? Sure. Maybe more. But then you see the scathing reviews a movie like 'Southland Tales' gets. Now, I'm not going to argue that 'Southland Tales' is good (it's flat out one of the worst directed movies I've ever seen), but it's such a bizarre mindfuck that I'm glad I watched it. It stuck with me longer than a lot of movies which were "good". There's a difference between being bad like 'Southland Tales' and being bad like 'The Whole Ten Yards'.

I'm just saying, there's a certain kind of critical mass dismissal of a movie that often piques my interest, even if I'm later disappointed by the movie. To be honest, I find movies that get mass critical acceptance to be more suspect, in a way. [As a sidebar -- is it me, or does it seem like film criticism is getting way more monolithic these days? When did all the film critics start more or less agreeing with each other? Where is the serious critic who is championing bizarre, unnoticed movies these days?]

I may have changed my mind, though, after watching 'Youth Without Youth' this year. I did kind of wish I'd listened to the critics on that one.

comment #46

Richardson says ...

Sorry, that came out kind of long. I"m not trying to convince you to like 'Tideland'. But every film lover worth his salt that I know has a few movies in their closet which are widely regarded as "bad' which they think are misunderstood and great. It's fine to sit around talking about 'Dark Knight', but I think it's more fun to talk to somebody who's just glad they found somebody else who likes 'Ishtar'.

comment #47

DarthCorleone says ...

Richardson>> Fair points and very well said.

I tend to use the gestalt of reviews as a means for determining whether I should see a film. However, I've also made the observation before that many of the films I've found to be the greatest fall into that 70 to 85 % Rotten Tomato range as opposed to the 85%-plus, as if the quality of being misunderstood by at least a few is required for greatness. (Thanks to Emerson.) Tideland garnered a 28% on Rotten Tomatoes; in my estimation that's more than sufficient to be considered a red flag.

Tideland was certainly made by an artist who cares about his craft. There's no denying that. I'm not going to say it's completely without merit for everyone, and I respect Gilliam's effort. As far as making a connection with me goes, though, it's a total failure. I do have film fan friends who disagree sharply with me on that. I'll acknowledge that a 3000 Miles To Graceland comparison isn't totally fair - apples and oranges - but I'd say the odds of my revisiting both films are the same.

comment #48

Richardson says ...

Honestly, I'm surprised that it made it to 28%.

I like the rotten-tomatoes thing, but I also like to read a few samples more in-depth. The thing about the 'Tideland' reviews that got me interested was that all the reviewers seemed so angry at it for existing.

But, as I said in my initial post, I have no objectivity as far as Gilliam. I'm not saying "I like Gilliam, so I can't judge the movie as bad, even though it is." I just mean, for whatever reason, my sensibilities as a film viewer click perfectly with his sensibilities as a film maker.

The best brief explanation I can offer is that, it came out in a year where no other movie offered any surprises for me. Even the good stuff was obvious and predictable. But, an hour and a half into 'Tideland', I had no idea what was going to happen or where it was going. It made me believe that bad things could happen to the characters, which most movies don't do (or, if they do, they telegraph exactly what the bad thing is). The ending left be drained, but also moved, and strangely uplifted.

But I've only met two people who liked it as much as me, and that was my then-roommate and his then-girlfriend.

comment #49

DarthCorleone says ...

I'll agree with you that it's not predictable, and that is something that I generally find refreshing in film.

In the reviews that I did read, it seemed that a lot of that anger stemmed from moral outrage and discomfort related to the situations in which the little girl's character found herself, particularly the ones with a sexual bent.

I didn't really find that material objectionable; it fit the context of the story. Thus, I wouldn't describe my reaction as angry - just bored and uninterested.

Different strokes for different folks, of course. I enjoyed the discussion. :- )

comment #50

BruceShank says ...

Sad how Gilliam's career has been navigated. His movies show flashes of brilliance but ultimately tend to disappoint. Fear and Loathing was difficult to sit thru, Brothers Grimm was sadly just as tough and we never got a shot at Don Quixote. Now this. Hope it has the fire to give him a little commercial success. He's also optioned Rick Huffman's book "Baxter Peanut" which will also be an interesting sell.