IGN now has a review of Gilliam's latest, Tideland, up on its site. It seems to confirm everything we've been saying in the comments. I think this paragraph summed it up pretty well:
That's why Tideland is such a frustrating experience. The film is a difficult one to sit through for much of its running time, not simply because of its ungainly narrative structure, but also because of some increasingly gut-wrenching scenes. Still, one can't simply discount Gilliam's efforts so easily, for it is clear that there is more at work here than what is on the surface. The film is Gilliam unrestrained to be sure, and the result is a picture that has no chance at commercial success whatsoever — but a great shot at upsetting many a right-wing politico at the very least.
The review then delves into the plot a bit too much, probably not really giving away anything intergral to the viewing experience (if you've read anything on it, you've probably already read about the heroin and adult-child relationship), but it doesn't add too much to the other buzz that I've read about the film. How many times do I have to read phrases like this: "But if the idea of seeing a little girl helping her dad shoot up doesn't bother you, and neither does the notion of human taxidermy, then how about the blossoming romance between an adolescent girl and an adult, mentally-disabled man?" Yeah, we get it; subject matter that may be hard to watch.
It makes me long for a film community like the extreme films of Japan. I watch Miike's films, like Visitor Q, and there's incest, abuse, necrophelia, drugs, everything...and no one seemed to mind. Here, in the States, one girl helps her dad shoot up heroin, and suddenly it's so controversial, so new and depraved. Go watch the opener to Ichi the Killer and then come talk to me about depraved (and hilarious).
Regardless, I'm going to see it. The bottom line is that I don't care. I really like Gilliam and if the movie is "Gilliam unrestrained," then I feel like I won't be disappointed.
