TIDELAND - Terry Gilliam's latest on DVD 2/27 (1 Viewer)

[Parker Clack]

I will blind buy this one. I hated 12 Monkeys when I saw it at the theater and then grew to appreciate it the more I watched it. The same with Brazil. They are now too of my favorite films.

Gilliam is the tye of director, for me, that requires repeated viewings to appreciate.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Very true, Parker. I've only seen the Fisher King once and didn't really enjoy it. I can honestly say that I've loved Brazil and 12 Monkeys from the get-go, but I need to go back and watch Jabberwocky and Time Bandits, not to mention see Fear & Loathing, The Brothers Grimm and Tideland.

 

[TonyD]

i still havent finished watching.


i did see this will be a 2 dvd special edition.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ques...hp?startpage=8

 

[Nicholas Vargo]

Saw the movie last month. Found it to be almost indescribable. Although I actually said that I thought it was the most screwed-up movie I had ever seen, and that says a lot. It is a very good movie, and I think it has the potential to become a cult classic in the tradition of Gilliam's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Still, despite the fact that I didn't love the movie, I will still be buying this because the movie has stuck with me, but I need to see it again to find out if it is possible that I can actually love it.

 

[Chad Ferguson]

Having seen the movie I think it was terrible. Gilliam has never be good with the pacing of his films. Also, Jennifer Tilly just wasn't good at all. In fact, I found most of the acting to be average. Just a story that tries to be an adventure and personally I found it to fail on most accounts.

 

[seanOhara]

My copy came in the mail yesterday. I haven't had a chance to watch it, but I was really surprised by the amount of extras since I hadn't seen any specs listed when I ordered. There's an introduction and commentary by Gilliam on the film itself, deleted scenes with Gilliam commentary, green screen footage with Gilliam commentary, a documentary on Gilliam with Gilliam commentary(!), a making-of featurette, a couple interviews, and the trailer. Even if the movie turns out to suck (and after Brothers Grimm I'm ready for that possibility) the disc will be worth it for the sheer volume of Gilliam.

The only downside is that the best quote they could find for the back cover is from Harry Knowles.

 

[Demis G]

I liked Brother Grimm a lot.. :p

 

[Sean Richardson]

Man, this movie can't catch a break. First it gets released to, like, one theater for two weeks ... with no ad campaign. And now they release it on DVD...

AND IT'S ANAMORPHIC FULL FRAME.

Yes, it's 16:9, instead of 2.35:1 ... and, apparently, it's pan-and-scan, not open matte (I haven't checked that myself yet).

This sucks. This was one of my favorite movies of the past several years, and now I want to return the DVD, except that I know that, due to the smallness of it, it will never get a better release.

 

[Vincent-P]

We need to get this fixed the same way Lord Of War was. Don't resign yourself to MAR, people! Does anybody know how to contact Thinkfilm?

 

[Ed Moroughan]

Not sure if this is right but it was the first result on Google:

[email protected]

Plus some snail mail and phone/fax info:

NYC-
23 East 22rd Street, 5th Floor
New York, New York 10010
Phone- (212) 444-7900
Fax- (212) 444-7901

Toronto-
2300 Yonge Street, Suite 906
Toronto, Ontario M4P 1E4
Phone- (416) 488-0037
Fax- (416) 488-0031

 

[Chad E]

I dropped in to HTF tonight to ask if the Canadian version of Tideland was even anamorphic. The case just says "Letterbox DVD Screen Format"... no mention of anamorphic or enhanced for 16:9 or anything.

Then I find out that it's MARed from 2.35:1?!? That sucks even worse!

The Canadian version seems to be put out by Maple Pictures and Capri Releasing. I don't see any mention of ThinkFilm anywhere on the packaging.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I would really like to know if this was a creative choice by Terry Gilliam; I highly doubt it, but I guess it's possible. At any rate, I am extremely disappointed, as I really liked this film, too.

Thanks for the e-mail address, Ed. The company's website is http://www.thinkfilmcompany.com, and under "Contact Us," it only lists addresses and phone numbers, which are as follows:

NEW YORK CITY

23 East 22nd Street, 5th Floor
New York, New York 10010

212-444-7900
212-444-7901 (fax)

TORONTO

2300 Yonge Street, Suite 906
Toronto, Ontario M4P 1E4

416-488-0037
416-488-0031

Vincent's right; we need to see what we can do about this. It's a film with a very small audience, but to me that's all the more reason for them to get it right. The majority of people who are going to buy this DVD care about such things as correct presentation.

 

[Sean Richardson]

I would like to amend my earlier post slightly; based on what was being said at DVDtalk, I said that it was pan-and-scan. That was before I had looked. Now that I have looked, the chapter stops image previews are 2.35, and the movie is definitely 16:9. But, eyeballing it on chapter 4, the edges of the frame appear to be the same. So it might be open matte.

Not that this makes it any better, and I'm still not sure either way. I with you, Vincent, lets get this fixed. It makes no sense for a niche art film. It appears that everything on both discs -- deleted scenes, trailer -- it's all modified. Oddly enough, the production company credits at the beginning are 2.35.

Also, a minor gripe, but this is just another example of dropping the ball - the theatrical poster had a quote from David Cronenberg. The DVD case has a quote from Harry Knowles.

 

[BarryS]

I think Tideland is Gilliam's best movie in years. I understand why it's so polarizing, it's just that kind of movie. But I thought it was great. It really has a poetic beauty that Gilliam hasn't managed in quite a long time. Plus it's really freakin' bizarre. Lovers of weird, surreal, dark movies will eat this one up.

 

[Kramer Lowry]

 

[Sean Richardson]

Disregard my post, I have now watched about a third of the movie with the commentary, and have spotted a few very definite digital pans. So it's pan-and-scan.


One man's trash is another man's treasure. I understand why it divides people, but I'm personally a fan of the unrestrained Gilliam of it all.

 

[Ed Moroughan]

At first I was thinking all this was was a case ala "The Recruit" with the opened Super 35 frame. Now, regarding Sean's above post I'm confused even more. Are there pans like he describes in The Recruit? I've never watched the DVD.

 

[Sean Richardson]

I haven't seen 'The Recruit' and can't compare them. There's a guy on DVDtalk saying that if you compare the DVD image of 'Tideland' to the trailer posted on Youtube, the lost information on the sides is obvious. I can't check that from this computer, so I can't say. I can say that, in watching the film, I noticed a few digital pans, but not a lot of them. [Specific examples include a short scene of Jeliza-Rose in front of a mirror, where the close-ups have a little unnatural looking pan a few times, and the scene about 40 minutes in or so of J-R and Dickens running through the field, there's definitely points when the pan-and-scan kicks in to re-frame them before they run off.] The camera was always moving as well, which is probably why reviewers didn't catch it (every review I've read says the transfer is amazing, and color-wise and all that, it is). A friend of mind pointed out that it could be both open-matte and have digital pans, so that's possible, but I don't think it's the case.

Perhaps somebody with better technology at their disposal can post some proof so people can see it for themselves.

EDIT: UPDATE - From reading the Terry Gilliam "Dreams" website forums, and a few reviews of the British DVD, it appears that the R2 UK disc is in the proper aspect ratio.

 

[Vincent-P]

I think this is actually a deeper problem with Thinkfilm. One of their other recent releases on DVD is Keeping Mum, which I've just discovered has also been reformatted. Its OAR is 2.35:1, which is its ratio on DVD in other regions, but is 1.78:1 here in R1. Something stinks at Thinkfilm & they need to get an earful about it!

 

[Paul Prischman]

I've compared it to the Russian (unofficial?) release which I've had for some time now - it's listed as "16:9 Anamorphic" and looks to be about 1.85:1.

The Th!nkFilm R1 - at approx 1.78:1 appears wider by a smidgen.

I didn't see this play theatrically, so I can't vouch for the 2.35:1 OAR question, but I saw NONE of the tell-tale pan & scan moves on either version.

As the film was shot Super35, I suspect we're seeing an "open matte" presentation - but we'll have to see. I'm sure Gilliam or Th!nkFilm will offer some sort of statement this week. Gilliam tends to prefer presentations around 1.85 - he might possibly prefer this one for home video. Who knows?

I have to say, comparing it to a presentation on YouTube isn't exactly optimum either.