Because of the actions of her irresponsible parents, a young girl is left alone on a decrepit country estate and survives inside her fantastic imagination.Because of the actions of her irresponsible parents, a young girl is left alone on a decrepit country estate and survives inside her fantastic imagination.Because of the actions of her irresponsible parents, a young girl is left alone on a decrepit country estate and survives inside her fantastic imagination.
IMDb RATING
6.3/10
33K
YOUR RATING
- Director
- Writers
- Tony Grisoni(screenplay)
- Terry Gilliam(screenplay)
- Mitch Cullin(novel)
- Stars
Top credits
- Director
- Writers
- Tony Grisoni(screenplay)
- Terry Gilliam(screenplay)
- Mitch Cullin(novel)
- Stars
- Awards
- 1 win & 12 nominations
Videos1
Alden Adair
- Lukeas Luke
- (uncredited)
Mitch Cullin
- Bus Passengeras Bus Passenger
- (uncredited)
Harry Gilliam
- Jerryas Jerry
- (uncredited)
Kent Nolan
- Boyas Boy
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- Tony Grisoni(screenplay)
- Terry Gilliam(screenplay)
- Mitch Cullin(novel)
- All cast & crew
- See more cast details at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThe hanten (Japanese-style jacket) that Jeff Bridges wears while "going on vacation" says "kotobuki" in Japanese, which ironically means "long life."
- GoofsThe map of Jutland misspells the West Jutland harbor city of Esbjerg as Ebsjerg.
- Quotes
Queen Gunhilda: It's your daddy's fault you were the way you were, not mine. 'Cause I loved you... lip smackin' little junkie baby. Irritable and hyperactive, you was, just twitchin' and spasms and convulsions. Your daddy blew smoke in your face to keep you quiet; you know that, mm hmm. I think it what damaged you, well don't blame me, cuz. I breast fed you forever... Jeliza Rose you know I love you, don't you? I'm sorry baby, I'm gonna do something real nice for you real soon some day, I promise.... What the fuck are you doin'? How many times do I have to tell you to stay away from my chocolate, you little bitch?... Oh honey, I don't want you to leave me, Jeliza Rose. I can't get by without you, Jeliza Rose.
- SoundtracksVan Gogh In Hollywood
Written by John Goodwin
(c) Queen's Knight Music BMI
Produced by Chris Pelonis
Vocals Performed by Jeff Bridges
Guitar Solo by Chris Pelonis
Courtesy of Ramp Records
Top review
Terry Gilliam and the state of the art
Having watched Terry Gilliam's Tideland just a few hours ago, I sat down to write a review and find that I can't. I'm still too angry.
Not at Gilliam, no. I am angry because I half-dreaded turning on the movie to begin with. Critics largely reviled Tideland on its (minimal) American release -- Rotten Tomatoes calculates its positive receptions at 27%. And a fair number of online commentators, even fans of the director, have branded the movie as "awful," "a mess," "disappointing," etc., etc. So, while I felt interest in Tideland, I put off watching it. The reviews made me wary and I hated to see Gilliam flop. But today it came from Netflix and I thought, why not, and popped it in.
And now I am angry -- angry because I cannot believe this beautiful, scary, funny, mesmerizing, heart-wrenching movie is the same one discussed in all those reviews. Have I stumbled on some unique director's cut that no one else got to see? Or have I misunderstood the purpose of movies?
At the beginning of the movie Gilliam himself appears, in black-and-white, like Edward Van Sloan at the beginning of Frankenstein, to inform us that we may find the movie shocking, but that it should be seen as through the eyes of a child -- innocent. One can take this prologue either as a bold stroke or a move of desperation, but either way, he's right. Little Jeliza Rose (played by an astounding Jodelle Ferland) goes through absolute hell, set adrift in a bare landscape by a heroin-addicted father (Jeff Bridges). Having no protection, no support, no food, and nothing to do, she builds a new reality out of, simply, play.
The redemption of imagination is Gilliam's Great Theme, and has featured in all his movies, but never I think with the depth of feeling displayed here. The camera glides and bobs and darts, low to the ground, a child's eye view, and the tone of the movie stays true throughout, without a whiff of sentimentality. Jeliza's situation is bleak and terrifying, but she's occupied with other and more pressing issues -- conversing with squirrels, squabbling with her dolls, and befriending her alarming neighbors: a witchlike taxidermist and her mentally retarded brother.
But she's no fool, and Gilliam isn't either. The dreadful reality is always present, and Jeliza knows what's what; she possesses that paradoxical childhood perspective that allows a doll's head to be "just a doll's head" and at the same time a living person with an identity. The movie shows us the world as her imagination transforms it; she spins terror and tragedy into fable.
This movie staggered me; it's a genuine work of art, and it left me in tears. If that puts me at odds with 75% of the critical consensus, I'll live with that. When I think of the endless trite garbage that these same critics routinely praise, garbage that often wins awards or breaks box-office records, comfortable and self-congratulating hackwork that rarely has a scrap of the kind of creative courage or honesty of something like Tideland, it frankly makes me question what a good movie actually IS. Do feel-good escapism and drearily unnatural "naturalism" really comprise the height of cinematic expression? And does the idea of being made genuinely uncomfortable by art, genuinely challenged -- surely art's primary function -- have any current market value?
In short, if Tideland is not a good movie, then what are movies for?
Not at Gilliam, no. I am angry because I half-dreaded turning on the movie to begin with. Critics largely reviled Tideland on its (minimal) American release -- Rotten Tomatoes calculates its positive receptions at 27%. And a fair number of online commentators, even fans of the director, have branded the movie as "awful," "a mess," "disappointing," etc., etc. So, while I felt interest in Tideland, I put off watching it. The reviews made me wary and I hated to see Gilliam flop. But today it came from Netflix and I thought, why not, and popped it in.
And now I am angry -- angry because I cannot believe this beautiful, scary, funny, mesmerizing, heart-wrenching movie is the same one discussed in all those reviews. Have I stumbled on some unique director's cut that no one else got to see? Or have I misunderstood the purpose of movies?
At the beginning of the movie Gilliam himself appears, in black-and-white, like Edward Van Sloan at the beginning of Frankenstein, to inform us that we may find the movie shocking, but that it should be seen as through the eyes of a child -- innocent. One can take this prologue either as a bold stroke or a move of desperation, but either way, he's right. Little Jeliza Rose (played by an astounding Jodelle Ferland) goes through absolute hell, set adrift in a bare landscape by a heroin-addicted father (Jeff Bridges). Having no protection, no support, no food, and nothing to do, she builds a new reality out of, simply, play.
The redemption of imagination is Gilliam's Great Theme, and has featured in all his movies, but never I think with the depth of feeling displayed here. The camera glides and bobs and darts, low to the ground, a child's eye view, and the tone of the movie stays true throughout, without a whiff of sentimentality. Jeliza's situation is bleak and terrifying, but she's occupied with other and more pressing issues -- conversing with squirrels, squabbling with her dolls, and befriending her alarming neighbors: a witchlike taxidermist and her mentally retarded brother.
But she's no fool, and Gilliam isn't either. The dreadful reality is always present, and Jeliza knows what's what; she possesses that paradoxical childhood perspective that allows a doll's head to be "just a doll's head" and at the same time a living person with an identity. The movie shows us the world as her imagination transforms it; she spins terror and tragedy into fable.
This movie staggered me; it's a genuine work of art, and it left me in tears. If that puts me at odds with 75% of the critical consensus, I'll live with that. When I think of the endless trite garbage that these same critics routinely praise, garbage that often wins awards or breaks box-office records, comfortable and self-congratulating hackwork that rarely has a scrap of the kind of creative courage or honesty of something like Tideland, it frankly makes me question what a good movie actually IS. Do feel-good escapism and drearily unnatural "naturalism" really comprise the height of cinematic expression? And does the idea of being made genuinely uncomfortable by art, genuinely challenged -- surely art's primary function -- have any current market value?
In short, if Tideland is not a good movie, then what are movies for?
helpful•715
- miloc
- Dec 31, 2009
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Tierra de pesadillas
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $19,300,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $66,453
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $7,276
- Oct 15, 2006
- Gross worldwide
- $566,611
- Runtime2 hours
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content

Recently viewed
Please enable browser cookies to use this feature. Learn more.