General Chat / Brothers Grimm

I don't want to make some big elaborate thing about it, because that wouldn't be in the spirit of Terry Gilliam and the movies he makes. If you think Monty Python is funny, see this movie. If you're sick of hollywood movies being so predictable all the time, see this movie. There was a big smile on my face from beginning to end. This is one of the true geniuses out there in the world of moviemaking and he needs people to see his movies so he can keep making them.

I didn't know Gilliam was making it.
I'll definitely have to see it, then. I love Monthy Python and Twelve Monkeys and Time Bandits and all the other stuff he's done that I can't remember right now.

I think I'm going to be seeing it tonight... I can't wait.

I don't see what's not predictable? Was it the convenient plot? The tacked-on love story that was alluded to constantly but never developed? This was written by the guy who did Scream 3 for christ's sake.

The Brothers Grimm, as it stands, is not a good movie. It's alright, and Gilliam probably does about as much with the terrible script as possible, but the positives can really be summed up in 4 words....

Art Direction, Damon, Ledger.

I agree he needs to be supported, and that's why I did support him. But this is Gilliam collecting a paycheck and little more.

As it stands, the last two movies he's completed have been two of his worst.

i agree with vTD. while it did have it's merits just didn't please. much of the movie seemed really sloppy. the CG which was the main holdback for this movie's release still wasn't very good.

overall i just felt it wasn't very elegant and well thought-out, and truthfully i was bored for most of the movie. i really did love cavaladi though, that guy was great.

i agree with vTD.  while it did have it's merits just didn't please.  much of the movie seemed really sloppy.  the CG which was the main holdback for this movie's release still wasn't very good.

overall i just felt it wasn't very elegant and well thought-out, and truthfully i was bord for most of the movie.  i really did love cavaladi though, that guy was great.

I agree partially. I found the first 1/2 quite dull, the only thing keeping me from being totally bored was the wonderfully fun chemistry between Matt Damon and Heath Ledger and getting to see Jon Pryce ham it up.

I've heard that Gilliam wasn't happy with the studio cut. His cut is apparently longer and probably less messy (though that's not saying much, since Gilliam is a messy filmmaker to begin with).

it was quite the opposit for me. the 1/2 half was semi-interesting you were able to learn about who they were and their story. i thought that the second half went on and on and on. for me there was no climax of the movie. i didn't even care when Matt Damon got sworded, nor did i care when Heath Ledger got the girl.

still, there were some extremely cool things in the movie. the ginger bread thing? yeah, that was fucking awsome. also, Monica Bellucci is ALWAYS nice to see in a movie. but i really think the most powerful part of the movie was the credits at the start of it, the music and the visuals worked very well.

edit: Jon Pryce wasn't that great of a character for me, Peter Stormare did a way better job with Cavaldi; atleast he was the one who was making most of the theater laugh.

See that's what I mean about making a big thing not being in the spirit of Terry Gilliam. His movies are silly, irreverant fun. I thought the script was kindof ingenious in a way how it took these familiar stories and showed us something new with them. There were plenty of moments of totally unpredictable sillyness in that movie and you know it! Or if you don't know it, than I can see why you thought it was a bad movie. I'd go to a lot more movies if they were half as fun as this. But it seems like the only kind of humor people appreciate any more is irony and cynicism. The CG was definately a weak point, but the production design was so strong that a little cheap CG is acceptable I think. Movies like Lord of the Rings keep elevating our expectations for computer graphics, but this was passable. And it wasn't especially showy with the CG. Some scenes required it, that's all.

I guess the best analogy I can make is this. Some people like supermodels because they look perfect. That too me is a sortof inhuman kindof beauty. I prefer the kind of beauty that has warts and wrinkles like everyone else. Because that's real. And this movie was an ugly kind of beautiful. And it seems like nobody but Terry Gilliam understands how to make ugly beautiful anymore, or even bothers to try.

See that's what I mean about making a big thing not being in the spirit of Terry Gilliam. His movies are silly, irreverant fun. I thought the script was kindof ingenious in a way how it took these familiar stories and showed us something new with them. There were plenty of moments of totally unpredictable sillyness in that movie and you know it! Or if you don't know it, than I can see why you thought it was a bad movie. I'd go to a lot more movies if they were half as fun as this. But it seems like the only kind of humor people appreciate any more is irony and cynicism. The CG was definately a weak point, but the production design was so strong that a little cheap CG is acceptable I think. Movies like Lord of the Rings keep elevating our expectations for computer graphics, but this was passable. And it wasn't especially showy with the CG. Some scenes required it, that's all.

I guess the best analogy I can make is this. Some people like supermodels because they look perfect. That too me is a sortof inhuman kindof beauty. I prefer the kind of beauty that has warts and wrinkles like everyone else. Because that's real. And this movie was an ugly kind of beautiful. And it seems like nobody but Terry Gilliam understands how to make ugly beautiful anymore, or even bothers to try.

Ed, you know I'm about as far from "cynical" as possible. It was mildly fun, and it got a number of chuckles from me (often because of the unpredictable sillyness. The problem is, there's nothing else to it.

I didn't hate it, it was a decent enough time at the theater, considering it's been a month between Grimm and March of the Penguins (I'll get out to Grizzly Man before I go back to college on Wednesday). But that's all it was, decent enough entertainment.

**1/2/**** - The kind of thing you tell yourself was alright and then completely forget about.

If you want a Gilliam movie that means something, apparently Tideland is for you, although I've only heard it in passing. I haven't seen the Brothers Grimm yet but I'll probably like it, if only for the same reason I like Time Bandits: it's silly.

Then again, Tideland apparently depicts a small child whose mother's heroin overdose and death leads to her seclusion and befreinding of both her bodiless barbie doll heads and her neighbor who always wears a beekeeper's veil.

So... hmm.

I just don't understand what kind of a cold, heartless world we must live in that would consider Brothers Grimm to be a bad movie. It's getting 38% on Rotten Tomatoes right now. Wha?! As bad as movies have been for the past 6 months or so, where there was literally nothing worth watching for a long time, I'd expect people to be jumping from the rafters to praise this movie. The only knock I can see against the movie is that it's not "cool" in a time when "cool" is everything. The dialogue is terrific because it isn't sharp or witty at all. The whole Tarantino racket that everyone wants to retread is really getting old. The acting is ridiculous and over the top. None of these guys are thinking Oscar in the slightest. Which is refreshing I think. It seems more and more that there's "junk" cinema that Hollywood puts out 3/4 of the year and then the "serious" award-winner type movies that close out the year. It took a movie like this which doesn't fit into either category to remind me how rare that's gotten. This is a movie that isn't self-consciously about how brilliant it is, nor is it a stupid "babes and testosterone" moneymaker. It's a genius director doing what he does best -- borrowing from our own cultural imagination to bring zany worlds and characters to life. It's like a puppet show. Maybe it's just forgetable entertainment in the end, but at least it respects me as an audience. Most of what passes for entertainment now is just about pandering to our base desires and urges. This is flawed entertainment, but even that is better than most of the crap we get.

And if anything I bet Gilliam's cut is even more "messy". And probably better for it. I don't mean to offend you vTd, but to be honest, you're starting to sound like a "cine-snob" to me. March of the Penguins? That's a PBS special. I'm sure it's got wonderful photography, but that doesn't really qualify as a good "movie" to me. And from the trailer, it seems like that Grizzley Man documentary just wants us to laugh at the guy instead of trying to understand who he was and why he did what he did.

I just don't understand what kind of a cold, heartless world we must live in that would consider Brothers Grimm to be a bad movie. It's getting 38% on Rotten Tomatoes right now.  Wha?! As bad as movies have been for the past 6 months or so, where there was literally nothing worth watching for a long time, I'd expect people to be jumping from the rafters to praise this movie. The only knock I can see against the movie is that it's not "cool" in a time when "cool" is everything. The dialogue is terrific because it isn't sharp or witty at all. The whole Tarantino racket that everyone wants to retread is really getting old. The acting is ridiculous and over the top. None of these guys are thinking Oscar in the slightest. Which is refreshing I think. It seems more and more that there's "junk" cinema that Hollywood puts out 3/4 of the year and then the "serious" award-winner type movies that close out the year. It took a movie like this which doesn't fit into either category to remind me how rare that's gotten. This is a movie that isn't self-consciously about how brilliant it is, nor is it a stupid "babes and testosterone" moneymaker. It's a genius director doing what he does best -- borrowing from our own cultural imagination to bring zany worlds and characters to life. It's like a puppet show. Maybe it's just forgetable entertainment in the end, but at least it respects me as an audience. Most of what passes for entertainment now is just about pandering to our base desires and urges. This is flawed entertainment, but even that is better than most of the crap we get.

And if anything I bet Gilliam's cut is even more "messy". And probably better for it. I don't mean to offend you vTd, but to be honest, you're starting to sound like a "cine-snob" to me. March of the Penguins? That's a PBS special. I'm sure it's got wonderful photography, but that doesn't really qualify as a good "movie" to me. And from the trailer, it seems like that Grizzley Man documentary just wants us to laugh at the guy instead of trying to understand who he was and why he did what he did.

cine-snob? Not even close. I'm not the one (quite inaccurately in the case of Grizzly Man) judging stuff I haven't seen.

I'm glad you loved it, but just because you can't fathom why other people don't like it doesn't mean the rest of us (or me in particular) are being intellectually dishonest or snobbish because you find solace in the fact that it is intentionally quaint.

And don't give me that shit about "cool", you know me better than that.

I gave it a fair shot, and wasn't that enamored with it. My problems with the cut arise from the fact that it weaves a fairy tale that is less interesting than the bits and pieces it borrows from Grimms tale, and whiles it's doing this, it COMPLETELY ignores the main characters. This may be that the script sucks as much as I expect it does, or it might be from the studio forcing a shorter cut, but all we get is that they're brothers and something tragic about magic beans that is constantly alluded to but is never given any true meaning (yes, we know what it means, but why the hell should we care?). The characters are only worth following because Damon and Ledger are interesting actors. It's as much an exercise in style as a lot of the films you decry for trying to be "cool" (a position I tend to agree with you on. I'm profoundly against the age of cynicism we're living in). It's just Gilliam style, which is interesting and fun in itself, but like everything, not enough to support 120 minutes of bad characterization.

I would love to see a longer cut of the film without a lot of studio tampering, but that too could just be me asking for punishment. Who knows, there could be more of Peter Stormare in the longer cut, and God knows we don't need that.

Or the explanation to the whole thing could be that you're a Gilliam fanboy (and I don't mean that in a bad way), and I'm just not. I respect his vision, but find he doesn't know how to tell a story.

you didn't like cavaldi?

Just watching Matt Damon talk in a british english accent, was enough of a crackup for me. He did okay though, and had great "buddy" chemistry with Heath.

I was just bored throughout. Some of it worked, but most of it was lame.. just like most monty python stuff is (totally overrated; I know this isn't a Monty Python movie). All in all, I enjoyed "Red Eye" 34872394823470923852435324 times more.

you didn't like cavaldi?

A little of him goes a long way.

This movie was alright, but Monty Python is WAYYYYY better. There were a few funny parts though.

His movies are silly, irreverant fun. I thought the script was kindof ingenious in a way how it took these familiar stories and showed us something new with them. There were plenty of moments of totally unpredictable sillyness in that movie and you know it!

Well, seeing as the true Brothers Grim fairytales have been distorted and twisted in such a way as to leave most of the violence and good stuff out of them, making a movie about the Brothers and not weaving in their (mostly) true stories would be pointless. What I'm saying is that it's not really new.

I felt the ending saved it from beeing sub par. I don't know about it though, I wouldn't say it was amazing, but it wasn't terrible either. I'll admit it was kind of fun in places, but not throughout.

cine-snob?  Not even close.  I'm not the one (quite inaccurately in the case of Grizzly Man) judging stuff I haven't seen. 

I'm glad you loved it, but just because you can't fathom why other people don't like it doesn't mean the rest of us (or me in particular) are being intellectually dishonest or snobbish because you find solace in the fact that it is intentionally quaint. 

And don't give me that shit about "cool", you know me better than that.

I gave it a fair shot, and wasn't that enamored with it.  My problems with the cut arise from the fact that it weaves a fairy tale that is less interesting than the bits and pieces it borrows from Grimms tale, and whiles it's doing this, it COMPLETELY ignores the main characters.  This may be that the script sucks as much as I expect it does, or it might be from the studio forcing a shorter cut, but all we get is that they're brothers and something tragic about magic beans that is constantly alluded to but is never given any true meaning (yes, we know what it means, but why the hell should we care?).  The characters are only worth following because Damon and Ledger are interesting actors.  It's as much an exercise in style as a lot of the films you decry for trying to be "cool" (a position I tend to agree with you on.  I'm profoundly against the age of cynicism we're living in).  It's just Gilliam style, which is interesting and fun in itself, but like everything, not enough to support 120 minutes of bad characterization. 

I would love to see a longer cut of the film without a lot of studio tampering, but that too could just be me asking for punishment. Who knows, there could be more of Peter Stormare in the longer cut, and God knows we don't need that.

Or the explanation to the whole thing could be that you're a Gilliam fanboy (and I don't mean that in a bad way), and I'm just not.  I respect his vision, but find he doesn't know how to tell a story.

I definately don't consider myself to be a fanboy or anything. At least not in the derogitory manner that term is typically used, which implies some kind of irrational obsession. I did see "Lost in La Mancha", and seeing Terry Gilliam's wonderful creative energy there contrasted with the production falling apart around him does give me more interest in seeing him succeed this time. But that isn't the only reason. I don't just like seeing people succeed who deserve to succeed and have failed in the past. I need people to succeed who are making movies that they want to make because if they can't succeed at it, than what chance have I got? Terry Gilliam isn't a sellout. He makes the movies he wants to make. And furthermore, he's got a crazy kind of genius creativity for production design and camera angles and just weirdness. Like the scene with the cat. Nobody else would ever do that and get away with it. And because his movies are so weird, they don't usually do well at the box office. So as someone who is a fan of that particular brand of weirdness, I feel somehow obligated to tell people how much I like it and try to get more people to see it. Just like I do with parks I like. Going to see a movie by Terry Gilliam makes it possible for people to make movies they like. Going to see something like Fast and the Furious 2, on the other hand, makes it harder for me because that kind of movie isn't made by filmmakers, it's made by corporations. So anyway, that's my little rant. And I was never really angry at you in any way for disliking it. Those comments about it not being "cool" enough for some people is mostly directed at my frustration at seeing the movie critically panned. The movie has some problems, granted. It's not destined to be a classic or anything. But there's more than enough fun in the movie (I think) to make up for just an ordinary script and some pacing issues.

The only thing I'll say about your specific comments on the movie is about the main characters. Mostly I agree with you except I don't think it matters what happened with the beans. We don't need a flashback. We don't need a psychoanalysis on the main characters to make this a good movie. There's a suggestion of what happened and it's assumed that if we know the story, than we understand all we need to know about the characters. One of them is the kind of guy that would sell their only cow for some magic beans and the other one is the practical one. They're more caricatures than characters, but that's appropriate for a fairy tale anyway isn't it? There's the dreamer and the skeptic and they basically are there to act as the voice of the audience. This isn't some kind of deep character study. It's about whimsy and fantasy being replaced by practicality and reason. The French army symbolizes imperialism and the "barbarian" Germans with their superstitions symbolized the world of whimsy and fantasy which are being stamped out. It's a simple tale really. And yes it could have been told a little better, but the look of it was pretty amazing (without Steven Spielberg's 100 million dollars worth of special effects that is -- also somewhat appropriate I think. I think Gilliam would prefer the kind of fantasy where you can see the strings on the puppets anyway to the super-slick pseudo realism of CG -- and a part of me really appreciates that attitude.) I guess it basically comes down to this. I'm willing to excuse a lot if there's something at the core of the film that I really respect and appreciate. I really appreciate the kindof "get your hands dirty" way that Terry Gilliam makes movies. And I also thought the actors were in the right place for a film like this. All suitably hammy without becoming self-parody. I don't argue woth your criticisms mostly because you're technically correct. But I'm the guy who buys the magic beans. When I get a little flicker of magic in my eye, I sort of melt a little bit. It's why I'll tell you that Blade Runner is my favorite movie of all-time and it's why I had to come here and urge people to go see Brother's Grimm as soon as I saw it. Because I know the film-going majority won't see what's so special about this and that makes me sad.

Amen Ed. For the same reason that so many poopoo'd Brazil (which happens to be my second favorite film EVER), Gilliam is into stylish guerilla film making, making the movie HE wants.

Sadly, the Weinsteins really did shit on his creative efforts with Brothers (they fired his DP six weeks into production...BIG MISTAKE)..they CUT his CGI budget by almost 25%...mistake number 2.

As for his "wanting you to see the puppet strings" comment....I disagree. He was not happy at all about losing the CGI budget. But he plodded through, and made, I think the best movie he could.

Sadly....it was my least favorite of Gilliams films, only because his other work is SOOOOOOOOO fucking brilliant!!!

I have heard comments from "Gilliam noobs" about how they were "confused" by this film, and I chuckle at that thought. They were probably "confused" by Time Bandits too.

I have heard comments from "Gilliam noobs" about how they were "confused" by this film, and I chuckle at that thought. They were probably "confused" by Time Bandits too.

Shit, I was, that's why I bought it!