The Brothers Grimm review

[MadsenOMC]

HUGE SPOILERS!!!!!

Considering the excellent films that he’s already made as well as the production nightmares he’d had on others, it’s safe to say that everyone hopes that Terry Gilliams’s “The Brothers Grimm” is good, even though the long delay in its release has most people concerned.

Though I count myself as a Gilliam fan and one who truly hoped for the best, “The Brothers Grimm” is a spectacular mess and not a good movie. Moments of Gilliam brilliance are few and far between, and most of it feels uninspired and generic, especially towards the lackluster and conventional conclusion.

The movie begins with an extremely brief prologue set in 1796, following a declaration of “Once upon a time………” Jacob and William Grimm have a gravely ill sister, and Jacob has been given the task of seeking aid for her. Alas, he returns with magic beans, which he insists will ensure them all a long, happy and healthy life. William is furious, and we learn later on that their sister did die.

15 years later, in French occupied Germany, Jake (Heath Ledger) and Will (Matt Damon) are called upon to help a village rid itself of an angry witch. They have become quite famous for eradicating evil all over Europe. In this instance, they use an injection of baby tears to destroy the evil witch. The townspeople are grateful, completely unaware that they’ve been scammed.

Jake and Will make a nice living by concocting a phony witch or demon or some such monster. They swiftly come in to save the day, charging the town a bundle for their services. They claim the money goes towards the supplies that they require to fight off whatever they have been called in to get rid off.

It’s a good gig, until they get caught. A French general (Jonathan Pryce) and his henchman, Italian soldier Cavaldi (Peter Stormare), capture two men who work for Jake and Will. Under extreme duress, the men fess up to their thieving ways.

Facing the death penalty for their crimes, Jake and Will have one way out. Young girls have been disappearing from a small village on the edge of a forest (we see a girl in red being chased through the woods and attacked by something off-screen). If they can figure out what is going on and rescue the girls, they will receive amnesty.

Cavaldi joins them in their quest, as does a woman from the village (Lena Headey) whose two young sisters were the first to vanish. They travel deep into the woods, which mysteriously appears to be alive, and discover an ancient tower. The tower once housed a beautiful queen (Monica Bellucci) who hid there while a plague destroyed her kingdom.

After strange encounters with trees that move and ferocious wolves, among other things, the brothers begin to suspect that the tower may not be empty, and somehow whoever is in there is connected to the disappearing girls.

There are numerous problems in “The Brothers Grimm,” the main one being the lack of focus and a constantly changing tone. Is it a fantasy? Is it a comedy? Is it a thriller? Is it all of the above or maybe just two out of three? It’s impossible to say. Tonally, the movie is all over the place. It never forms a cohesive whole, and the constant shifts are abrupt and awkward.

The comedy is very hit-and-miss, favoring the miss side. It’s too broad and silly. Damon, the more cynical of the duo, gets off a few good one-liners, but other than that, the laughs aren’t there. Part of the problem is one performance in particular. The normally excellent Stormare goes ridiculously over the top and gives a grating performance. His character is a caricature, and an incredibly annoying one. Nearly every time he’s on screen, he drags the scene down with him.

On the other hand, the movie fails to be suspenseful because it’s constantly trying to be funny. You never get the chance to be frightened. Not that it seems to be trying all that hard to be scary. Every time it appears that tension will be generated, someone says something wacky or someone trips on something. Why that happens so often is sort of perplexing, but it just doesn’t feel like it belongs.

Frankly, it’s also quite dull and redundant. Jake and Will go into the woods. They fail to accomplish anything. The French general gets mad at them. Repeat. To make matters worse, it’s totally obvious from early on where the story is going, and of course everything happens exactly as you expect it to. A Gilliam movie shouldn’t be so predictable and lacking in surprises.

There’s also some horrible CGI sprinkled here and there. Remember the laughably pathetic CGI wolves in “The Day After Tomorrow?” Well, the CGI wolves here are just as unconvincing and lame.

Finally, there’s the disappointing and routine conclusion. It’s straight out of Hollywood, full of some of the oldest clichés around. The Case of the Talking Villain? Check. Rather than dispose of someone, the villain just talks, stating how they want the person “to beg.” Leaving just enough time for someone to save the day. How about the character who is shot dead, only to rise again, also saving the day? Check again. It all leads to a happy, sunny, joyous ending, with the screen informing us that everyone lives happily ever after. This is a Gilliam movie? Sure as hell doesn’t feel like one.

“The Brothers Grimm” does have a couple of redeeming qualities. At times the production design and cinematography (the great Newton Thomas Sigel) are quite striking, and it’s amusing to see how they incorporate The Gingerbread Man, Hansel & Gretel, Snow White, Little Red Riding Hood and Sleeping Beauty into the story. Plus, Bellucci is always fun to look at (her role here is little more than a cameo).

Sadly, other than that, it’s a disappointment. Ehren Krueger’s screenplay is a mess, though who knows how much was re-written. There are strong ideas drowned out by confusion over the tone, misplaced attempts at comedy and a general lack of focus. You can easily imagine people arguing behind the scenes about what kind of movie they were making. And apparently, no one could ever agree on anything.

4/10

[bob]

I didn't read the review, because I'm psyched for the flick, but 4/10, huh? Damn, that's low even for you! ;)

Would you mind posting a few non-spoiler comments? Broad strokes, if you will? I haven't read any reviews of this so far...

[donna542004]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
HUGE SPOILERS!!!!!

Considering the excellent films that he’s already made as well as the production nightmares he’d had on others, it’s safe to say that everyone hopes that Terry Gilliams’s “The Brothers Grimm” is good, even though the long delay in its release has most people concerned.

Though I count myself as a Gilliam fan and one who truly hoped for the best, “The Brothers Grimm” is a spectacular mess and not a good movie. Moments of Gilliam brilliance are few and far between, and most of it feels uninspired and generic, especially towards the lackluster and conventional conclusion.

The movie begins with an extremely brief prologue set in 1796, following a declaration of “Once upon a time………” Jacob and William Grimm have a gravely ill sister, and Jacob has been given the task of seeking aid for her. Alas, he returns with magic beans, which he insists will ensure them all a long, happy and healthy life. William is furious, and we learn later on that their sister did die.

15 years later, in French occupied Germany, Jake (Heath Ledger) and Will (Matt Damon) are called upon to help a village rid itself of an angry witch. They have become quite famous for eradicating evil all over Europe. In this instance, they use an injection of baby tears to destroy the evil witch. The townspeople are grateful, completely unaware that they’ve been scammed.

Jake and Will make a nice living by concocting a phony witch or demon or some such monster. They swiftly come in to save the day, charging the town a bundle for their services. They claim the money goes towards the supplies that they require to fight off whatever they have been called in to get rid off.

It’s a good gig, until they get caught. A French general (Jonathan Pryce) and his henchman, Italian soldier Cavaldi (Peter Stormare), capture two men who work for Jake and Will. Under extreme duress, the men fess up to their thieving ways.

Facing the death penalty for their crimes, Jake and Will have one way out. Young girls have been disappearing from a small village on the edge of a forest (we see a girl in red being chased through the woods and attacked by something off-screen). If they can figure out what is going on and rescue the girls, they will receive amnesty.

Cavaldi joins them in their quest, as does a woman from the village (Lena Headey) whose two young sisters were the first to vanish. They travel deep into the woods, which mysteriously appears to be alive, and discover an ancient tower. The tower once housed a beautiful queen (Monica Bellucci) who hid there while a plague destroyed her kingdom.

After strange encounters with trees that move and ferocious wolves, among other things, the brothers begin to suspect that the tower may not be empty, and somehow whoever is in there is connected to the disappearing girls.

There are numerous problems in “The Brothers Grimm,” the main one being the lack of focus and a constantly changing tone. Is it a fantasy? Is it a comedy? Is it a thriller? Is it all of the above or maybe just two out of three? It’s impossible to say. Tonally, the movie is all over the place. It never forms a cohesive whole, and the constant shifts are abrupt and awkward.

The comedy is very hit-and-miss, favoring the miss side. It’s too broad and silly. Damon, the more cynical of the duo, gets off a few good one-liners, but other than that, the laughs aren’t there. Part of the problem is one performance in particular. The normally excellent Stormare goes ridiculously over the top and gives a grating performance. His character is a caricature, and an incredibly annoying one. Nearly every time he’s on screen, he drags the scene down with him.

On the other hand, the movie fails to be suspenseful because it’s constantly trying to be funny. You never get the chance to be frightened. Not that it seems to be trying all that hard to be scary. Every time it appears that tension will be generated, someone says something wacky or someone trips on something. Why that happens so often is sort of perplexing, but it just doesn’t feel like it belongs.

Frankly, it’s also quite dull and redundant. Jake and Will go into the woods. They fail to accomplish anything. The French general gets mad at them. Repeat. To make matters worse, it’s totally obvious from early on where the story is going, and of course everything happens exactly as you expect it to. A Gilliam movie shouldn’t be so predictable and lacking in surprises.

There’s also some horrible CGI sprinkled here and there. Remember the laughably pathetic CGI wolves in “The Day After Tomorrow?” Well, the CGI wolves here are just as unconvincing and lame.

Finally, there’s the disappointing and routine conclusion. It’s straight out of Hollywood, full of some of the oldest clichés around. The Case of the Talking Villain? Check. Rather than dispose of someone, the villain just talks, stating how they want the person “to beg.” Leaving just enough time for someone to save the day. How about the character who is shot dead, only to rise again, also saving the day? Check again. It all leads to a happy, sunny, joyous ending, with the screen informing us that everyone lives happily ever after. This is a Gilliam movie? Sure as hell doesn’t feel like one.

“The Brothers Grimm” does have a couple of redeeming qualities. At times the production design and cinematography (the great Newton Thomas Sigel) are quite striking, and it’s amusing to see how they incorporate The Gingerbread Man, Hansel & Gretel, Snow White, Little Red Riding Hood and Sleeping Beauty into the story. Plus, Bellucci is always fun to look at (her role here is little more than a cameo).

Sadly, other than that, it’s a disappointment. Ehren Krueger’s screenplay is a mess, though who knows how much was re-written. There are strong ideas drowned out by confusion over the tone, misplaced attempts at comedy and a general lack of focus. You can easily imagine people arguing behind the scenes about what kind of movie they were making. And apparently, no one could ever agree on anything.

4/10

I think I'm going to like this movie. I like quriky movies.
Donna A.

[MadsenOMC]

What makes you think it's quirky donna? As for non-spoiler comments, a 4 may seem harsh, but while I certainly didn't hate it, it's just not very good. It can't decide if it's a fantasy or a comedy or a thriller. The tone is all over the place and it never forms a cohesive whole. It's predictbale. Peter Stormare (who I like) gives an over the top, incredibly annoying performance and basically ruins every scene he's in. The ending is totally conventional and full of lame cliches. And it's just plain boring. A complete mess really. It's obvious why the release has been delayed for so long. It's being dumped for good reason.

[Lazy Boy]

The trailer alone made me unsure about the quality of the movie -- it went from quirky humor to dark actiony back to semi-humorous. It never seemed to be too clear on what it was advertised as.

[Mr-Blonde]

Given that Madsen OMC generally rates films 3 or 4 notches below most, I'll take it that this film is really a 6 or 7. Either way I'll check it out because it's Gilliam. The man's cinematography and editing skills alone are usually worth the price of admission.

[Mr-Blonde]

Simmer down son- twas only a joke. No need to get all riled up. It just seems as though you have pretty tough standards at times.

[MadsenOMC]

Gilliam didn't edit or shoot the movie. He only directed it. And what do you mean by your comments about my rating? You're really not going to start some tired bullshit are you? I hope not. That would be quite lame.

[Mr-Blonde]

What can I say? I have a sarcastic sense of humor but most other people don't seem to mind. I'll be sure and give you a ;) next time.

[MadsenOMC]

It sure wasn't written like a joke. There was no reason for me to think that you were kidding around. Especially considering how often I have to deal with this crap.

[donna542004]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
What makes you think it's quirky donna? As for non-spoiler comments, a 4 may seem harsh, but while I certainly didn't hate it, it's just not very good. It can't decide if it's a fantasy or a comedy or a thriller. The tone is all over the place and it never forms a cohesive whole. It's predictbale. Peter Stormare (who I like) gives an over the top, incredibly annoying performance and basically ruins every scene he's in. The ending is totally conventional and full of lame cliches. And it's just plain boring. A complete mess really. It's obvious why the release has been delayed for so long. It's being dumped for good reason.

I got that from the trailer. I guess the way they took the Grimms Fairytail and twisted it. I guess after I see it. I will give you my oppinion. I am sorry you didn't like it.
Donna A.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
What can I say? I have a sarcastic sense of humor but most other people don't seem to mind. I'll be sure and give you a ;) next time.

You've got to understand, I am constantly dealing with the same old crap about my ratings. So I am a little touchy about it.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
You've got to understand, I am constantly dealing with the same old crap about my ratings. So I am a little touchy about it.

Dude...the reason people give you shit about your ratings is because typically, the only "review" threads you open up are for movies you think are shitty. I did my research, here are the films (that I could find) that you've opened up "review" threads for:

Brothers Grimm
Devil's Rejects
The Interpreter
Constantine
Hitch
Coach Carter
Saw
Finding Neverland
Without A Paddle
A Cinderella Story
Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle
Breakin' All The Rules
The Punisher
Blue Crush
XXX

Out of those, the highest rating you gave was 8/10 to Finding Neverland. The next highest was 6/10. Yeah, a lot of those were shit. But dude, if you want people to stop criticizing your ratings then do one of two things: either don't open your own review threads (which people are going to notice instead of seeing your positive reviews in someone else's thread) or open threads for movies you LIKED. It's really simple. Don't get pissed off at people because it's you, not them, that are making them form this opinion. If I only open threads about movies I hate then yeah, people will think I hate a lot of movies. Either balance it out or don't get mad when people don't do research in other threads on what movies you do like.

[MadsenOMC]

So I should stop opening threads simply because I didn't like the movie? Give me a fucking break. What a load of shit. I open the thread because I saw the movie early and want to post my review. Plain and simple. Because of my position as a freelance writer, I typically get to review crappy movies that the full-time movie critic doesn't want to see. I don't have a choice, and I am not going to turn down a review. So please, before you go running your mouth, try to know what the hell you are talking about. OK? I would love to see advanced screenings of Batman Begins and quality flicks like that, but the main movie critics reviews those. So I usually have to pay to see them like everyone else. Otherwise, you can bet your ass that I'd be opening up a thread for those movies, too. Understand now? Make sense? I sure as hell hope so. By the time I have seen the movies I've liked so far this summer, a thread has already been opened. Got it? I hope that takes care of this. It damn well should.

[ilovemovies]

Madsen, at this point you should probably just ignore anyone who gives you hassle. That's what I'd do.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
So I should stop opening threads simply because I didn't like the movie? Give me a fucking break. What a load of shit. I open the thread because I saw the movie early and want to post my review. Plain and simple. Because of my position as a freelance writer, I typically get to review crappy movies that the full-time movie critic doesn't want to see. I don't have a choice, and I am not going to turn down a review. So please, before you go running your mouth, try to know what the hell you are talking about. OK? I would love to see advanced screenings of Batman Begins and quality flicks like that, but the main movie critics reviews those. So I usually have to pay to see them like everyone else. Otherwise, you can bet your ass that I'd be opening up a thread for those movies, too. Understand now? Make sense? I sure as hell hope so. By the time I have seen the movies I've liked so far this summer, a thread has already been opened. Got it? I hope that takes care of this. It damn well should.

Good Christ, chill the fuck out dude. You wonder why it happens, well wonder no more. Unfortunately, it's not mandatory on these message boards to read and understand "The Hitchikers Guide to MadsenOMC" and understand your position as a freelance journalist. Many people just see that you review a lot of movies and dislike them. I never said don't review them. Just understand WHY it happens and don't fucking blow a blood vessel. I don't give a fuck what you do, post all the reviews in the world, it really doesn't bother me. But you act like Clint Eastwood raped your father everytime someone says "Tehehe, Madsen doesn't like anything." Give ME a fucking break. I'm sick of seeing you bitch and moan about people giving you flack. If I only open up threads about Creed and Alter Bridge in the music forums, and then get mad when people make fun of me because they don't "check my other shit" to see what kind of music i'm into, it's not their fault. Got it? Make sense? Ok? Understand now?

[MadsenOMC]

Actually, your example doesn't work. You have a choice to listen to Creed and Alter Bridge. Like I said, I don't have a choice of what I see. I get assigned to them. I am passionate about movies, just like everyone else. So of course I'm going to open a thread and write a review. I'm not going to say, "Geez, I didn't like it. I better not write a review. The same people are going to make baseless accusations again." Sorry. Not going to do that. And I am not the one that needs to chill out. I am sick of this crap, and rightfully so. It was old a long time ago. Do I need to make you a list of all the movies I have liked recently? Cause it's a long list. Otherwise, I hope this is over.

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILERS!!!

chinton, in the version I saw yesterday, Little Red Riding Hood does not get eaten by a tree. Her character is introduced about 30 minutes into the movie. She is chased through the woods by something flying and unseen. As soon as she exits the woods and approaches her village, whatever was chasing her attacks her.

[chinton]

I remeber I saw this movie at a test screening a year ago. It wa s one of those movies I liked but I really wish it worked better. The big problem with the movie was that while there were a ton of great ideas swiriling around a lot of them never really congealed leaving a very confusing narrative. Its too bad becuase I loved all the Grimms Tales they included I just wish they spent more time hammering out the script. I never really liked Heath Ledger but I enjoyed Matt Damon. I do have to say though the first 10 minutes with Little Red Riding Hood where she gets eaten by trees is awesome. A sort of decent ok movie.

6/10

[Cronos]

while i wasnt overly excited about the film i doubt ill probably just give it a rent from the sounds of it

[chinton]

Then I should probably mention I obviously saw an earler cut although it sounds like it had the same narrative and tonal probelms

[MadsenOMC]

It definitely has the same narrative and tonal problems, and they must have done reshoots. Makes sense considering the long delay and stories of production problems.

[someguy]

SPOILERSPOILERSSPOILERS








Good review Madsen, but I can understand why Gilliam went with the ending he did. The Grimm Brothers created a lot of the fairy tales, and it was typical to start with 'Once upon a time' and 'They all lived happily ever after.' They are finally experiencing a true fairy tale, so of course it wouldn't end with a bunch of dark content or anything.

I can understand your complaints about it being too cliche though, I just thought it was odd that you don't like the happy ending when the movie is trying to be like a fairy tale which almost all the time has a happy ending.

[chinton]

Wow I saw radically different cut becuase it ended with a happy ending but as the camera is pulling away a piece of mirror comes into the frame suggesting that the bad witch is back and will reap vengence on the town.

Also it ends with the wrods and they lived happily ever after........or did they?

Also Im surprised you found it predictable. i guess I ddint cause I was confused most of the time

[MadsenOMC]

That's a good point, but I guess my problems with the happy ending are that A) a bunch of Hollywood cliches preceded it, and it's so formulaic (which I expected someone like Gilliam to avoid) and B) it's another example of the tonal problems that plague the movie. As I was watching the movie, I kept thinking about how much I would have liked it if the entire thing was dark. I mean, the original Grimm Fairy Tales were not all happy and cheerful right? They were nasty and violent and dark. I wish this movie was, too.

[chinton]

Madsen So Im guessing my cut had a diferent ending from my description?

[MadsenOMC]

No, it sounds like the last 60 seconds are about the same.

[MisterTwister]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
So I should stop opening threads simply because I didn't like the movie? Give me a fucking break. What a load of shit. I open the thread because I saw the movie early and want to post my review. Plain and simple. Because of my position as a freelance writer, I typically get to review crappy movies that the full-time movie critic doesn't want to see. I don't have a choice, and I am not going to turn down a review. So please, before you go running your mouth, try to know what the hell you are talking about. OK? I would love to see advanced screenings of Batman Begins and quality flicks like that, but the main movie critics reviews those. So I usually have to pay to see them like everyone else. Otherwise, you can bet your ass that I'd be opening up a thread for those movies, too. Understand now? Make sense? I sure as hell hope so. By the time I have seen the movies I've liked so far this summer, a thread has already been opened. Got it? I hope that takes care of this. It damn well should.

Dude, calm down. Just ignore them and don't respond to them either. I know i'm the last one to expect to hear this from (after bitching at you on your devil's rejects) Your hard to please and there are plenty of reviewers like that. Me, i'm easily pleased. Just slap on some non-stop gore and plenty of boobs and action and i'm happy. your becoming unpredictable to me madsen, it used to be "oh he's going toi hate that flick" but wht your postive reviews of High tension and Land of the dead i was surprised and no long know what to expect from you. Keep up the good reviews!!

[MadsenOMC]

Thank you. Very kind of you. If I seem defensive, well, it's because I am. I have to deal with this all the time. Try to understand how annoying it is. I am so sick of it. Way beyond sick of it.

[someguy]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
That's a good point, but I guess my problems with the happy ending are that A) a bunch of Hollywood cliches preceded it, and it's so formulaic (which I expected someone like Gilliam to avoid) and B) it's another example of the tonal problems that plague the movie. As I was watching the movie, I kept thinking about how much I would have liked it if the entire thing was dark. I mean, the original Grimm Fairy Tales were not all happy and cheerful right? They were nasty and violent and dark. I wish this movie was, too.

I can see your understanding of it, since as you said the movie is filled with comedic bits when most grimm tales were dark up until the happy ending. There were no laughs to be found through Little Red Riding Hood.

Just to steer this off for a moment, I noticed in the trailer that they showed blood(at the beginning when Little Red Riding Hood pricks her finger). I thought that blood couldn't be in any trailers or posters no matter what.

[Shockwave]

I must say im still rather looking forward to this, but im going to keep my expectations abit lower to be safe. :)

Even if its bad, it looks like it might be a "good" bad movie. Van Helsing sucked ass but i dont think ive enjoyed a movie like that in along time. Your laughing at it, rather then with it, but at least u get enjoyment out of it.