).IMDB link here.
Full Version: The Brothers Grimm
The fact that Terry Gilliam is directing it is enough for me to watch it.
| QUOTE |
| Her babyish features do not, however, make her a babe in Hollywood’s eyes, and today she is furious because she claims she has just been turned down, on lookist grounds, for a big new Miramax movie, The Brothers Grimm, by its producers, the brothers Weinstein. “Bob and Harvey Weinstein don’t want me to do it because the tops of my arms are too fat and they’d have to pay me properly,” she says bluntly, referring to her market value as an Oscar nominee. Did they ask her to slim? “No, they didn’t make me that offer. They just said I was too fat. And Terry Gilliam (the director) was like, ‘What do you mean I can’t cast this woman?’ We did two screen tests and then they said I wasn’t beautiful enough. You go, ‘OK, well beauty’s in the eye of the beholder. Let’s have a vote on it,’ so they asked everyone else and the other actors really wanted me to do it.” But not Miramax? “Not Harvey and Bob. Well, it’s their money, isn’t it?” (When I ring Miramax later, incidentally, they deny that she failed to get the role because of her weight and point out that, as it is a co-production, many voices contribute to decisions about the film.) |
If that's really true, that's pitiful. Do Bob and Harvey really have room to say anything about being "overweight"?
It is pitiful, but hardly surprising given the ridiculous attitudes to weight these days.
I actually once heard of a dancer for a Christian Band who was told to lose weight or she'd be out.
Matt
I actually once heard of a dancer for a Christian Band who was told to lose weight or she'd be out.
Matt
| QUOTE (MattPage @ Sep 2 2004, 03:42 AM) |
| It is pitiful, but hardly surprising given the ridiculous attitudes to weight these days. I actually once heard of a dancer for a Christian Band who was told to lose weight or she'd be out. Matt |
I dunno... I'm now seeing a trend among some actresses who are not scared to look like a normal woman. I hope it catches on.
I've been tracking this one for a while now as I'm a huge Gilliam fan. Go here to catch up on all you've been missing...
Sounds like Grimm might be in the can first, but the more from TG, the better!
Alan Thomas wrote:
: Sounds like Grimm might be in the can first . . .
Ah, so it does. I hadn't read the linked news stories before now, and the quote above about how Samantha Morton "has just been turned down" for a role made me think Grimm was still in development or something. But now I see that that story is almost a year old.
BTW, re: so-called "lookism", we do realize that film is a VISUAL medium and it is thus entirely appropriate for filmmakers to select actors based on their appearance, yes?
Anders wrote:
: Is that what the email in the press release is for?
That would definitely be the place to start, yeah -- I mean, after all, they're the ones who sent out the press release! They should be able to put you in touch with the right people, but if they don't know who you are, you might have to demonstrate to them that you are doing this interview for a specific publication, like, um, whatever your student paper is called. (Gadzooks, seven years out of CUP and the memory fades! The Sheaf, maybe? Or is that in Regina?) Or you might have to get the entertainment editor at your student paper to arrange the interview, or give you letterhead, or something -- depends on how organized the editor is, and whether you can trust him or her to make the right contacts. (Student-paper editors vary wildly, I find!) Perhaps it would help if you told the publicist your story might be picked up on the CUP wire, and thus might get national exposure. It might also help if there is some local angle you can pursue -- I have no idea what the odds would be of landing an interview with Gilliam himself, but you might be able to get on the set, at least, if you profile someone else, someone Canadian, someone local (like this Jodelle Ferland girl, or perhaps a graduate of your university who is working on the film, something like that).
: Sounds like Grimm might be in the can first . . .
Ah, so it does. I hadn't read the linked news stories before now, and the quote above about how Samantha Morton "has just been turned down" for a role made me think Grimm was still in development or something. But now I see that that story is almost a year old.
BTW, re: so-called "lookism", we do realize that film is a VISUAL medium and it is thus entirely appropriate for filmmakers to select actors based on their appearance, yes?
Anders wrote:
: Is that what the email in the press release is for?
That would definitely be the place to start, yeah -- I mean, after all, they're the ones who sent out the press release! They should be able to put you in touch with the right people, but if they don't know who you are, you might have to demonstrate to them that you are doing this interview for a specific publication, like, um, whatever your student paper is called. (Gadzooks, seven years out of CUP and the memory fades! The Sheaf, maybe? Or is that in Regina?) Or you might have to get the entertainment editor at your student paper to arrange the interview, or give you letterhead, or something -- depends on how organized the editor is, and whether you can trust him or her to make the right contacts. (Student-paper editors vary wildly, I find!) Perhaps it would help if you told the publicist your story might be picked up on the CUP wire, and thus might get national exposure. It might also help if there is some local angle you can pursue -- I have no idea what the odds would be of landing an interview with Gilliam himself, but you might be able to get on the set, at least, if you profile someone else, someone Canadian, someone local (like this Jodelle Ferland girl, or perhaps a graduate of your university who is working on the film, something like that).
: I dunno... I'm now seeing a trend among some actresses who are not scared to
: look like a normal woman. I hope it catches on.
I'd love to think you were right, but I'm cynical about it's chances. Can't help but think of Sophie Dahl who started out as a size 16 (or a 14 in the US) and seemed to be very proud about it and very successful but recently slimmed all the way down to a size 10 (an 8 in the US). Which she's quite entitled to do., but I personally wish she hadn't.
Matt
: look like a normal woman. I hope it catches on.
I'd love to think you were right, but I'm cynical about it's chances. Can't help but think of Sophie Dahl who started out as a size 16 (or a 14 in the US) and seemed to be very proud about it and very successful but recently slimmed all the way down to a size 10 (an 8 in the US). Which she's quite entitled to do., but I personally wish she hadn't.
Matt
| QUOTE (Clint M @ Sep 2 2004, 09:33 AM) |
| I dunno... I'm now seeing a trend among some actresses who are not scared to look like a normal woman. I hope it catches on. |
I don't. What does a "normal woman" look like? What does a "normal man" look like? I knowwhat us average folk look like...but average does not mean "normal" or even "what's best". Somehow, I think normal lies somewhere between Hollywood and the average person. When it comes to weight-who defines "normal"?
Please note that I have split off the Tideland posts here.
AICN scoops SPY PHOTOS of TBG sets...
Found a link to the new trailer over on Twitch...
http://movies.channel.aol.com/franchise/ex...ers_grimm_movie
http://movies.channel.aol.com/franchise/ex...ers_grimm_movie
I just watched this trailer and I wasn't really taken in. I don't want to make any rash comments but I will say I was hoping the movie was going to be about one of the Brothers Grimm fairy tales, or an amalgam of sorts.
The premise has been, from the beginning, that the Grimm Brothers themselves become unlikely adventurers after their village-to-village storytelling leads them into trouble with a wicked witch... or something along those lines. So I'm sure there will be references galore to the fairy tales.
GUESS which poster is Jason Bortz's favorite.
The one with the upside-down guys.
I don't believe in curses, but if I did, I'd think Gilliam is cursed. Pray for a director's cut on DVD.
I've got a lot of time to work on my review for this one, but I sure wish someone would come and tell me whether or not we saw a finished print tonight. I'd love to learn it was a temp soundtrack with early-stages effects. I have a sinking feeling that this is not the case. ZERO digital effects would have been better than BAD digital effects. And this thing needs to be a half hour longer, so the scenes can be allowed to breathe and the characters allowed to develop. Now I'll pin my hopes on Tideland to be the full return of Gilliam to the height of his powers. But he's gonna need support from his collaborators. And the right to final cut.
But thank God for Gilliam's commitment to restoring the claws to these old fairy tales. (Andrew Bird, take note.) This is a bloody, grisly forest of fairy tales, full of bright ideas. Do not take your kids. Really.
Other comments coming on release day...
I've got a lot of time to work on my review for this one, but I sure wish someone would come and tell me whether or not we saw a finished print tonight. I'd love to learn it was a temp soundtrack with early-stages effects. I have a sinking feeling that this is not the case. ZERO digital effects would have been better than BAD digital effects. And this thing needs to be a half hour longer, so the scenes can be allowed to breathe and the characters allowed to develop. Now I'll pin my hopes on Tideland to be the full return of Gilliam to the height of his powers. But he's gonna need support from his collaborators. And the right to final cut.
But thank God for Gilliam's commitment to restoring the claws to these old fairy tales. (Andrew Bird, take note.) This is a bloody, grisly forest of fairy tales, full of bright ideas. Do not take your kids. Really.
Other comments coming on release day...
QUOTE(Jeffrey Overstreet @ Jul 28 2005, 01:02 AM)
But thank God for Gilliam's commitment to restoring the claws to these old fairy tales. (Andrew Bird, take note.) This is a bloody, grisly forest of fairy tales, full of bright ideas. Do not take your kids. Really.
Now I have a sinking feeling. I just know when/if I go see it, the theater will be packed with kids...
My full review.
And with that, I'm off for a weekend of writing my own fairy tales. Have a good weekend, everybody. Hope you find some good movies.
And with that, I'm off for a weekend of writing my own fairy tales. Have a good weekend, everybody. Hope you find some good movies.
QUOTE(Clint M @ Sep 1 2004, 07:27 PM)
And apparently Samantha Morton was knocked out by Miramax for being "too heavy"...
Huh. I wonder if she was supposed to play the Monica Bellucci character or (more likely) the Lena Headey character. (Interesting to see Headey appearing in TWO films this weekend, including this and The Cave...)
She was supposed to play the Headey character, according to Gilliam.
QUOTE(Jeffrey Overstreet @ Jul 28 2005, 12:02 AM)
I don't believe in curses, but if I did, I'd think Gilliam is cursed. Pray for a director's cut on DVD.
You don't believe in the curses? Hm, what about the second commandment? Idolatry gets you four generations.
Saw this today at a matinee, and yuck, I found it to be disappointing. I don't have time to go into particular detail, but the whole thing felt half-baked, incomplete, indifferently-acted, poorly-edited, and messily-plotted. For the first time that I can remember, Matt Damon and Monica Bellucci fall flat. The fingerprints of studio meddling are all over the place; obviously, delays, reshoots, and the Weinsteins took their toll on this production. It ought to be a fantasy-satire, but it feels more like a frenetic, weird Stephen Sommers movie.
P.S.- The French guy played by Peter Stormare was the most intensely irritating character I've seen onscreen all summer.
P.S.- The French guy played by Peter Stormare was the most intensely irritating character I've seen onscreen all summer.
I *knew* this was going to happen.
Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) says, “The Brothers Grimm may have written unforgettable, imaginative stories that have mesmerized kids for centuries, but The Brothers Grimm is definitely not for children. More horror than adventure, the movie depicts a scary, spooky world filled with evil spirits, horrifying beasts, enchanted beings and sinister spells."
Uh... but isn't that the point of Kruger's and Gilliam's efforts? That most Americans associate Grimm fairy tales with the happy, innocuous Disney adaptations of the stories, when the truth is that the Grimm fairy tales do actually take place in “a scary, spooky world filled with evil spirits, horrifying beasts, enchanted beings and sinister spells.”
Andrew Bird actually lamented the fact that he lived in a world where the “tales of Brother Grimm… have been de-clawed.”
Too bad the movie's not very good, but to complain that it's scary and spooky and full of enchanted beings doesn't make any sense if one is defending the integrity of the original tales.
Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) says, “The Brothers Grimm may have written unforgettable, imaginative stories that have mesmerized kids for centuries, but The Brothers Grimm is definitely not for children. More horror than adventure, the movie depicts a scary, spooky world filled with evil spirits, horrifying beasts, enchanted beings and sinister spells."
Uh... but isn't that the point of Kruger's and Gilliam's efforts? That most Americans associate Grimm fairy tales with the happy, innocuous Disney adaptations of the stories, when the truth is that the Grimm fairy tales do actually take place in “a scary, spooky world filled with evil spirits, horrifying beasts, enchanted beings and sinister spells.”
Andrew Bird actually lamented the fact that he lived in a world where the “tales of Brother Grimm… have been de-clawed.”
Too bad the movie's not very good, but to complain that it's scary and spooky and full of enchanted beings doesn't make any sense if one is defending the integrity of the original tales.
This is going to be one of those movies that, even though I'm not a big fan of it, I'm going to end up defending against reviews that I can't comprehend.
Crosswalk's review says,
First of all, what does "From a Christian perspective, there's not much cursing..." mean? Is there *more* cursing from some other perspective?
Secondly, why should it disturb believers that the film speaks of a Christian king who does something inappropriate. "Christian kings" have done far worse!
Then there's this:
Oh! Heaven forbid that Matt Damon be shown as anything less than a pin-up! Mr. Ledger... how could you forget to shave?! Two desperate con men, tortured and then sent into a muddy, grimy forest... and they're made to look "off-putting" and "dirty"? Save us!
And in case you missed the warning earlier in the review:
That's right. Scary crows. Proceed with caution, folks.
Okay, to be fair, here's one statement I agree with:
And thus the reviewer (probably inadvertently) recommends even Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas ... which I too recommend.
Crosswalk's review says,
QUOTE
From a Christian perspective, there’s not much cursing, but there is an exclamation of “Fat Jesus!” early on. Most disturbing to believers, however, is that the village people tell a story (with venom) about how a “Christian king” came into the forest, killed all the trees and built a city.
First of all, what does "From a Christian perspective, there's not much cursing..." mean? Is there *more* cursing from some other perspective?
Secondly, why should it disturb believers that the film speaks of a Christian king who does something inappropriate. "Christian kings" have done far worse!
Then there's this:
QUOTE
And if you’re expecting a handsome and dashing Matt and Heath, don’t hold your breath. Their strange prosthetics, heavy makeup, dirt, and a baby fuzz face are off-putting and result only in a pair of strange, bumbling brothers.
Oh! Heaven forbid that Matt Damon be shown as anything less than a pin-up! Mr. Ledger... how could you forget to shave?! Two desperate con men, tortured and then sent into a muddy, grimy forest... and they're made to look "off-putting" and "dirty"? Save us!
And in case you missed the warning earlier in the review:
QUOTE
There is a werewolf, scary crows and beetles by the bushel.
That's right. Scary crows. Proceed with caution, folks.
Okay, to be fair, here's one statement I agree with:
QUOTE
Real Gilliam fans are better off renting one of his earlier films.
And thus the reviewer (probably inadvertently) recommends even Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas ... which I too recommend.
I stopped reading Crossswalk's reviews a long time ago, partly because the artistic judgements and writing quality of Holly McLure and company are so lame, and partly because of their Man on Fire review which states that "some will feel uncomfortable with the film’s Catholic representations (altars with candles and icons)". That was an uber-violent revenge movie (I never saw it, but everyone says so), and yet they're disproportionately concerned with its Catholic imagery than all the finger-chopping and F-words.
Anyways, Crosswalk made it clear in that review that they don't wish to appeal to Catholic readers, so I'm through with them.
I remember a similar reaction to the portrayal of the villainous "Christian woman" in Hidalgo. It seemed to upset a lot of people that the only specifically Christian character was a villain. For my part, I don't think its a big deal in either film; both the villain-chick in Hidalgo and the king in Brothers Grimm are being referred to as "Christian" in a purely cultural sense by cultural outsiders.
Anyways, Crosswalk made it clear in that review that they don't wish to appeal to Catholic readers, so I'm through with them.
QUOTE
Secondly, why should it disturb believers that the film speaks of a Christian king who does something inappropriate. "Christian kings" have done far worse!
I remember a similar reaction to the portrayal of the villainous "Christian woman" in Hidalgo. It seemed to upset a lot of people that the only specifically Christian character was a villain. For my part, I don't think its a big deal in either film; both the villain-chick in Hidalgo and the king in Brothers Grimm are being referred to as "Christian" in a purely cultural sense by cultural outsiders.
Longtime readers of this board may have noticed how, at the exhortation of SDG, I have stopped relentlessly linking to the outrageous things said in Movieguide reviews.
But I just couldn't resist checking to see what Mr. Baehr and company say about Brothers Grimm. And I wasn't disappointed. Apparently, Valiant is the film they recommend most highly these days, and Brothers Grimm is the lowest-rated film now-playing in theaters.
Here are few reasons why:
Note: Not only are some of these offenses mentioned twice in the list, but apparently it's a bad thing to see one brother kiss another brother in an attempt to break a spell.
It's also bad to hear people scream for help.
Ahhhhh ... Movieguide. Parting is such sweet sorrow, but seeing that it's business as usual back your page, I once again must walk away and focus on better things...
But I just couldn't resist checking to see what Mr. Baehr and company say about Brothers Grimm. And I wasn't disappointed. Apparently, Valiant is the film they recommend most highly these days, and Brothers Grimm is the lowest-rated film now-playing in theaters.
Here are few reasons why:
QUOTE
Very strong occult worldview that pointedly mocks Christianity, the Cross, the Church, the pastor, faith, and supports pagan nominalism, occultism, special knowledge, magic, and a plethora of other evils;
seven obscenities and six profanities, as well as con man hits the Cross on the altar in a mocking way, has a phony Cross that spews flames, conducts phony exorcism rites to kill phony witches, and other blasphemous actions;
extreme constant violence such as scenes of torture,
decapitated heads displayed,
children losing their faces,
young girls locked in coffins,
people shot with various different projectiles,
people stabbed in the heart,
people dragged by chains and ropes,
people hit beaten, scarped and burned,
and gruesome half-dead living dead wolves transforming into people,
bugs falling in and out of people's orifices,
horse swallows young girl,
people screaming for help,
man likes to torture,
witch scattered like glass,
limbs cut off,
eyeballs extracted,
and animal eats man;
man in bed with two women,
men cross dress, kissing,
500-year-old woman wants lover and tries to seduce two men (she looks beautiful in the mirror but really looks like a rotten corpse);
no nudity; drinking; smoking;
and, delighting in eating the blood of a cat that was kicked,
delighting in torture,
con men,
theft, etc.
seven obscenities and six profanities, as well as con man hits the Cross on the altar in a mocking way, has a phony Cross that spews flames, conducts phony exorcism rites to kill phony witches, and other blasphemous actions;
extreme constant violence such as scenes of torture,
decapitated heads displayed,
children losing their faces,
young girls locked in coffins,
people shot with various different projectiles,
people stabbed in the heart,
people dragged by chains and ropes,
people hit beaten, scarped and burned,
and gruesome half-dead living dead wolves transforming into people,
bugs falling in and out of people's orifices,
horse swallows young girl,
people screaming for help,
man likes to torture,
witch scattered like glass,
limbs cut off,
eyeballs extracted,
and animal eats man;
man in bed with two women,
men cross dress, kissing,
500-year-old woman wants lover and tries to seduce two men (she looks beautiful in the mirror but really looks like a rotten corpse);
no nudity; drinking; smoking;
and, delighting in eating the blood of a cat that was kicked,
delighting in torture,
con men,
theft, etc.
Note: Not only are some of these offenses mentioned twice in the list, but apparently it's a bad thing to see one brother kiss another brother in an attempt to break a spell.
It's also bad to hear people scream for help.
Ahhhhh ... Movieguide. Parting is such sweet sorrow, but seeing that it's business as usual back your page, I once again must walk away and focus on better things...
Baehr's review makes the film sound like a summer camp I attended once...
But--there's no nudity, drinking, or smoking!
Nothing is as ungodly as bugs falling in and out of people's orifices. Of course, I suppose it depends on the orifice.
Someone please explain this news story to me.
I mean... okay, fine, it's ridiculous to publish such a non-story. But that's not what really bothers me.
Anybody here who's seen the movie want to point out the obvious problem with this story?
I mean... okay, fine, it's ridiculous to publish such a non-story. But that's not what really bothers me.
Anybody here who's seen the movie want to point out the obvious problem with this story?
QUOTE(Jeffrey Overstreet @ Sep 6 2005, 11:23 AM)
Someone please explain this news story to me.
I mean... okay, fine, it's ridiculous to publish such a non-story. But that's not what really bothers me.
Anybody here who's seen the movie want to point out the obvious problem with this story?
[right][snapback]82526[/snapback][/right]
I mean... okay, fine, it's ridiculous to publish such a non-story. But that's not what really bothers me.
Anybody here who's seen the movie want to point out the obvious problem with this story?
[right][snapback]82526[/snapback][/right]
Two obvious problems that I can think of:
1. There's no sex scene in the film.
2. Matt Damon isn't that funny.
Correct... there's no sex scene. In fact, IIRC, Belucci never TOUCHES Damon. She does get up close and personal with Ledger, but there's nothing even close to a sex scene. What the heck?!
QUOTE(Jeffrey Overstreet @ Sep 6 2005, 11:28 AM)
Correct... there's no sex scene. In fact, IIRC, Belucci never TOUCHES Damon. She does get up close and personal with Ledger, but there's nothing even close to a sex scene. What the heck?!
[right][snapback]82532[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]82532[/snapback][/right]
I guess this is just further proof of what we Gilliam fans suspected all along... that huge pieces of this film were left on the cutting room floor, probably at the studio's request.
The DVD's bonus features should be fun. 
So the Weinsteins re-cut the film to make it more marketable (I can't imagine any other reason they'd interfere with Gilliam's vision) ... and TOOK OUT a love scene?
So the Weinsteins re-cut the film to make it more marketable (I can't imagine any other reason they'd interfere with Gilliam's vision) ... and TOOK OUT a love scene?
Interesting IMDB story here.
It's strange that Gilliam would say this, considering that Brothers Grimm is definitely NOT something that children should be seeing. I'm not saying that it's "evil", like the folks at Movieguide have, but still, it is way too dark for kids.
QUOTE
Terry Gilliam is convinced The Brothers Grimm has been critically slammed because an adult audience is too narrow-minded to appreciate his fantasy-driven work. The quirky director insists the film was a "desperate attempt" to smash cynicism and bring out the child in the viewer, even though The Brothers Grimm has been dismissed by one critic as a "fiasco... too violent for children and too inane for anybody else". He says, "Everybody has their opinion and some people are wrong. One of the things I enjoy about my films is that children really love them. They are open-minded. As we get older we seem to close in. We limit the size of the world we limit everything about it. We have to break that shell open sometimes and Grimm is just a desperate attempt to do so."
It's strange that Gilliam would say this, considering that Brothers Grimm is definitely NOT something that children should be seeing. I'm not saying that it's "evil", like the folks at Movieguide have, but still, it is way too dark for kids.
Finally got around to seeing this (and I'm struck at the coincidence of seeing my first Heath Ledger movie just a couple days before his untimely death).
I'll agree with the criticisms that the film seems unfinished, or suffers from a confused sense of what kind of film it wants to be. Several of the deleted scenes on the DVD would have helped to flesh out the story a little, but overall it is a mess. But a mess with some wonderful bits in it.
SOME SPOILERS AHEAD - I'm not tagging it, since I don't know for sure what counts as spoiler, and the movie has been out on DVD for a long time now anyway.
Things that worked (for me):
- the cursed horse - spooky, creepy, scary, dreadful
- the cursed well (and "gingerbread man")
- the establishing scenes of the red cloaked girl, and "Hans & Gretal" in the forest
- the set design of the village
- the tower, the mirror, the queen - design, story, Monica, temptation, sacrifice - I bought into it all.
Things that didn't work for me:
- Lena's character - "more grim than the Grimms" I think one review had it. Unsympathetic, and hard to relate to. Never warmed to her as a character.
- The torturer character - what movie did he sneak in from? Annoying, over-the-top, scene chewing. Lose him from this film and you lose nothing. Ugh. Keep Pryce as the "villain", fine, but just use nameless henchmen for the story duties required by the torturer, and cut out all the melodramatics. His turn of character at the end was unbelievable and in no way redeemed him from his earlier evil. Ugh.
- CG of the wolf. I liked the concept of who he was, and his place in the story. The effects were bad though, and I wonder if they could have achieved the same story/character without CG, using costuming and practical effects. Older werewolf movies managed to do so.
I kept thinking that if they (Gilliam?) had just dialed back on the gruesomeness a little, this could have been a great Halloween "scary movie" for families to watch. As it is, I was surprised that it squeaked through with just a PG-13. (More "ratings creep" perhaps?) Things that could have been dropped to this end?
- the aforementioned torturer, and everything related to him (Want to keep some of the torture scenes to ratchet up the danger? Fine - the snail-box head-boxes were icky without being utterly horrible.)
- the chopped kitten and tasty treat scene
- the introduction of Lena's tracker character - was there a point to her skinning and gutting the rabbit on screen?
- the decapitations of the Grimms' helpers
Oh well. Add this to the shelf next to Van Helsing in the "Wonderful Concept, Poor Execution" category.
B
I'll agree with the criticisms that the film seems unfinished, or suffers from a confused sense of what kind of film it wants to be. Several of the deleted scenes on the DVD would have helped to flesh out the story a little, but overall it is a mess. But a mess with some wonderful bits in it.
SOME SPOILERS AHEAD - I'm not tagging it, since I don't know for sure what counts as spoiler, and the movie has been out on DVD for a long time now anyway.
Things that worked (for me):
- the cursed horse - spooky, creepy, scary, dreadful
- the cursed well (and "gingerbread man")
- the establishing scenes of the red cloaked girl, and "Hans & Gretal" in the forest
- the set design of the village
- the tower, the mirror, the queen - design, story, Monica, temptation, sacrifice - I bought into it all.
Things that didn't work for me:
- Lena's character - "more grim than the Grimms" I think one review had it. Unsympathetic, and hard to relate to. Never warmed to her as a character.
- The torturer character - what movie did he sneak in from? Annoying, over-the-top, scene chewing. Lose him from this film and you lose nothing. Ugh. Keep Pryce as the "villain", fine, but just use nameless henchmen for the story duties required by the torturer, and cut out all the melodramatics. His turn of character at the end was unbelievable and in no way redeemed him from his earlier evil. Ugh.
- CG of the wolf. I liked the concept of who he was, and his place in the story. The effects were bad though, and I wonder if they could have achieved the same story/character without CG, using costuming and practical effects. Older werewolf movies managed to do so.
I kept thinking that if they (Gilliam?) had just dialed back on the gruesomeness a little, this could have been a great Halloween "scary movie" for families to watch. As it is, I was surprised that it squeaked through with just a PG-13. (More "ratings creep" perhaps?) Things that could have been dropped to this end?
- the aforementioned torturer, and everything related to him (Want to keep some of the torture scenes to ratchet up the danger? Fine - the snail-box head-boxes were icky without being utterly horrible.)
- the chopped kitten and tasty treat scene
- the introduction of Lena's tracker character - was there a point to her skinning and gutting the rabbit on screen?
- the decapitations of the Grimms' helpers
Oh well. Add this to the shelf next to Van Helsing in the "Wonderful Concept, Poor Execution" category.
B
Links to the threads on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (the film that would have, and sort of did, reunite Gilliam and Ledger) and Heath Ledger's death.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.