Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Brothers Grimm (2005)

This is topic Brothers Grimm (2005) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000976

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-25-2005, 06:03 PM:

THIS MOVIE IS CRAP!!! Everyone responsible for this turd of a film needs to be beaten.

0 out of 5 stars (I can't review in negative stars, right?)

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-26-2005, 09:07 AM:

Brad this is your site you can do what ever you want [Smile]

Posted by Jason Whitlock (Member # 3077) on 08-26-2005, 09:53 AM:

I was expecting it to be funnier with Terry Gilliam behind this movie..

It really felt that the story took 1.5 hours to progress 5 minutes only to be quickly summed up in the last 5-10 minutes.

.5 out of 5 with the half point going to sound mixing and visual effects.. not the best i've seen, but the best part of this movie.. definitely not the acting or the story..

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 08-26-2005, 12:12 PM:

Agreed, at least the people can't complain that the surrounds aren't working on this print. However, it gives them ammunition for when they see other dialog based features .

Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 08-26-2005, 12:42 PM:

Movie was horrible. Worst two hours that I've spent watching a movie in a really long time. I will agree, though, that the sound is excellent.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-27-2005, 05:37 AM:

I had no intention of seeing this. But now that I learned Terry Gilliam is behind it, I will have to go and see it. Gilliam is a genius, even though - or maybe because - he is often completely out of control and sometimes his own worst enemy.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 08-27-2005, 04:50 PM:

Yeah, I didn't know it was Gilliam either. I might have to poke my head in and catch a few minutes of it. Just out of curiosity.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-28-2005, 03:56 AM:

OK, forget what I said earlier about genius. I just sat through the movie. It blows massively. Maybe Gilliam is burnt out. This is just a distant shadow of his earlier movies. It doesn't have anything of the visual playfulness and unleashed torrent of ideas that made some of his earlier movies really unique.

This is not really an adaption of folk tale material like Sleepy Hollow. The Brothers Grimm were two early 19th century scholars in Germany who collected folk tales and were among the pioneers of the science of linguistics. They didn't really go around chasing supernatural villains, but were more of the academic type. I don't know if their work is well known outside of Germany though.
The story here is entirely fictional and makes surprisingly little use of the vastness of characters and motives found in the fairy tales. There seem to be more icky bugs than characters in this movie anyway.

Still, a comparison with Burton's Sleepy Hollow does not seem out of place. We have a similar time frame, a visually similar surrounding with mysterious forests and villages full of scared people, a clash between reason and superstition, reality and the supernatural. The washed out look used to give some scenes an eerie, chilly remoteness and sense of isolation is quite similar too.
The main difference is that Sleepy Hollow was a cinematic masterpiece while this is just a embarassing waste of film.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 08-28-2005, 10:43 AM:

This movie sucked so bad that Harvey Weinstein reportedly took it away and re-edited it ... only to give it back to Gilliam to edit again because his version sucked even more.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-28-2005, 12:55 PM:

Wow, so far the best rating on this thread has been 1/2 out of 5 stars!

I tried to warn all of you!!! [Razz]

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 08-29-2005, 01:20 AM:

Still not having seen it, I will take this opportunity to heed the warning. Consider it not to be seen. [Smile]

I think I can trust this batch of comments.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-29-2005, 04:35 AM:

No, don't let yourself be influenced by us. Maybe it is a ground breaking masterpiece, and we are simply too dim to understand that. Since you don't have to pay for it - you don't even have to specifically go to the cinema to see it, since you work in one -, why don't you watch it and let us know what you think?

Posted by Jason Whitlock (Member # 3077) on 08-29-2005, 05:50 AM:

it's a great movie to test how well you can read your watch in the dark.. I was checking mine every 10 minutes or so during this movie.. figuring out how much longer i had to endure this movie.. since it was during a screening.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 08-29-2005, 02:31 PM:

Yes- this movie blows chunks.

I read an article that the director wanted Johnny Depp in it and Miramax said "no". Matt Damon was informed that he was 'second choice' for his role. What the hell has Hollywood come to?

no stars for this one.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 08-29-2005, 05:42 PM:

OMG what are all of you talking about?

I am still LMAO!! I thought this was the best movie of the Summer. The cat in the fan was hilarious, as were many other parts. It kept me guessing what's going to happen next. I thought it was very original, good pace, great jokes, etc.

5 out of 5 stars.

I will say however, I saw this with a group, and about 30% of the group HATED it. The other 60% liked it, and 10% like me LOVED it!!!

Hats off as always to The Grand Lake Theatre in Oakland, CA for a flawless presentation.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-29-2005, 09:21 PM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
I read an article that the director wanted Johnny Depp in it and Miramax said "no".

If it had starred Depp, the comparison with Sleepy Hollow would have been even more inevitable and painful. Man, even the funny 19th century apparatuses they had weren't as good as Depp's in that movie.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-29-2005, 09:21 PM:

I thought there was a lot of potential in this movie with all of the fairy tale material at their disposal, but after seeing it, I think they blew it completely. The whole sub plot of them being chased by the French or whatever didn't serve any purpose except to get in the way and slow the plot down even more.

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 08-31-2005, 12:03 AM:

I thought that it was a great visual treat for the eyes, but a boring storyline. Matt Damon's british accent was dreadful. CGI was kewl, except for the runaway scarf, which was very cheesy. Artistically speaking, I would give it 4 out of 5 stars. Content wise - Storyline 2 out of 5 stars.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 09-02-2005, 10:21 PM:

The print of this title that I am running came to us loaded with lab splices. The print on the platter looks like an old IB print. Thats where the comparison ends.
'
Anybody else get a splicy print? Ours had at least 2 in each reel. I doubt it will be in our theatre for long.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 09-03-2005, 12:01 PM:

I liked the sketchy quality of the CGI, it's appropriate in a Terry Gilliam film, just like winged creatures. Also well played were Damon & Ledger, who appear to really want to be European.

But if anything was clear from this film, it's doubtful that Gilliam will ever have control over a major release since Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas or Don Quixote. His fantastic exaggeration of fantasy was cut down by a mediocre script, a tragically Beckinsale-esque heroine, and an ending with more shuffle than a poker game. Too many scenes that could have been truly horrifying nightmare-fuel were digitally slowed, or cut to cartoonish alternate CGI shots. I overheard two teenaged girls exiting this film that thought it should have been rated "R" at its present cut. I believe that the studios had enough trouble releasing a fairy-tale adaptation with a PG-13 rating, that they would have tried more alternate angles to run for a PG instead! No villian is well-developed. It seemed they were trying to make the French out to be just as scary as the damned woods...

Into the woods, out of the woods... Take one girl, rescue her, take another... Give Damon & Ledger pails of water to haul while they're at it! Problematic at best sums this one up.

St. Anthony Main #1, DTS

Posted by Dan Suomi (Member # 2585) on 09-06-2005, 01:23 PM:

[bs]

That's all I got to say about this film.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-08-2005, 01:56 PM:

quote: Bruce McGee
The print of this title that I am running came to us loaded with lab splices. The print on the platter looks like an old IB print. Thats where the comparison ends.
'
Anybody else get a splicy print? Ours had at least 2 in each reel. I doubt it will be in our theatre for long.

Sounds like a case of using up some short ends. ACVL Guidelines say no more than one lab splice per reel:

http://www.acvl.org/handbook/4c.htm

quote:
In release printing, it is recommended that there be a maximum of two splices per 400 feet of 16mm or 1000 feet of 35mm. These two splices may be insert splices, or one of the two splices can be a raw stock splice. There should never be two raw stock splices in the same reel. It is further recommended that spliced raw stock not be used in trial prints, dailies, TV spots or recording prints. It is customary practices to charge a premium for release prints that have no raw stock splices.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-08-2005, 02:59 PM:

But at least Deluxe picked a suitable title to use the short ends on! [thumbsup]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-15-2005, 02:43 AM:

We're stuck with this thing this weekend due to no prints available of anything else decent. Oh well, I needed a break from being busy I guess.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 10-26-2005, 02:46 PM:

All you said is true. This movie sucks badly and is a total waste of time. Looks like Gilliam did his usual sketches and designs and some hack director took over from that point, resulting in a kind of sad parody of a Terry Gilliam film.

Better see THE COMPANY OF WOLVES and SLEEPY HOLLOW, or even the danish silent film CHRONICLE OF GRIESHUS where they "borrowed" the design of the GRIMM village. [Big Grin]

- Cheesy special effects, especially the walking trees and the werewolf CGI character lokked really laughable.

- No attempt to create interesting characters, the Grimm brothers are immature idiots - why should an audience care for them?

- Depiction of the French as a kind of fascist suppressors with effiminate manners shows that Gilliam knows nothing about European history. In Germany, the modern legal system was installed by the French. Hope he gets kicked in the ass when he appears at Cannes film festival next time.

- The bumbling Italian torturer was one of the least threatening, least funny villains I can remember.

- I would never expect too much historic authenticity from a fantasy film, but some details indicate that Gilliam's script was slapped together with no respect for the period of his story. Just for the record, at that time it took at least a week to travel from Kassel to Frankfurt (it is said three times that they come from Kassel, "close to Frankfurt", which is like saying "I'm from Washington, near New York".). And a small village consisting of mre ten buildings would never have been called "Marbaden". Not important, but it shows the degree of "who cares?" on this production.

- Bad, bad, bad dialogue. Did Harvey Weinstein decide to turn a Gilliam movie into a "cool" kid's movie? Couldn't believe my ears.

- Total lack of humor. Meanness, yes, but nothing funny. In Monty Python films like THE MEANING OF LIFE death, live organ transplants and torture chambers are funny, but not here.

To make this a perfect evening, BROTHERS GRIMM was shown in a grainy, out-of-focus print with miserable registration (projection was OK), looking like 1980s Eastman VNF footage.
That's the way to keep the audience at home, watching a DVD.

BTW: When will producer realize that it does not save lousy movies if they add Monica Bellucci to the mishmash? [Roll Eyes]

Next time Brad issues such a clear warning, I will listen to it. [Embarrassed]