The Brothers Grimm (2005) User Reviews (514)

A nice premise, squandered

[petra_ste · 5/10 · 24 May 2007]

Early 19th century: brothers Will (Matt Damon) and Jacob (Heath Ledger) Grimm travel around Germany conning villagers and pretending to defeat imaginary monsters, until they are forced to investigate a series of mysterious disappearances. At first they believe it's the work of a fellow impostor, but this time real magic is involved. With the help of huntress Angelika (Lena Headey) and mercenary Cavaldi (Peter Stormare), the brothers Grimm face an evil sorceress (Monica Bellucci) haunting the local forest.

I really like the cast and the premise of the fake Ghostbusters clashing against a true supernatural threat. Sadly, the result is a disappointment.

What's wrong with the movie?

First, pacing is mortally off. It feels like a collection of choppily assembled vignettes ("Look, Little Red Riding Hood! Here come Hansel and Gretel!"). Scenes happen randomly and are not given enough time to breath; characters' interactions are perfunctory. For example, at one point we are told both brothers have feelings for Angelika, but nowhere in previous scenes this had been given the proper setup.

Structure is a mess: we have three scenes with our heroes captured by the French, three scenes with them bumbling around the magic tower, etc. It's clunky, repetitive and unfocused - as if the screenwriters had this droll high-concept fantasy premise, wrote a first unpolished draft and called it a day.

Also, tone. This is part fairy tale with Gothic elements, part slapstick comedy (Stormare's mercenary would feel at home in a Monty Python sketch). The more lighthearted material isn't particularly funny and the transition to serious scenes feels jarring. It made me re-evaluate Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow, which handled a similar cocktail between genres much more deftly.

Strangely for a Terry Gilliam movie, The Brothers Grimm lacks personality.

5/10

not bad

[moonstarly · 7/10 · 26 August 2005]

Well, my friends, I have just returned from the earliest possible showing of "Brothers Grimm" in my area, and I can assure you it was well worth getting up a few hours earlier than usual to watch. However, I would caution anyone who doesn't like Terry Gilliam's work, Matt Damon and Heath Ledger, or the REAL brothers Grimms' stories that this is not your average fantasy. The story is set in french-occupied Germany in the 1700s, a real time in which real people actually lived. Even some of the magical aspects of the story are explained by real events (I won't spoil it for you). So quite a bit of the plot deals with the realities of the day and age along with the fantastical aspects of the forest and its inhabitants.

That being said, the story also deals with the opposite side of unreality-- the dark and unnaturally gruesome. This is where I think the writer hit on a brilliant point; while the real brothers' stories have happy endings and some lighthearted moments, most if not all of their stories involve some degree of blood and gore. My hat is off to Ehren Kruger for being true to that aspect of their work.

The only aspects of this movie I disliked were the unresolved ending (which I won't spoil, either) and some of the acting. Lena Headey's performance did not impress me, but it could just be lack of material to work with (a very overdone character) and the fact that I've never seen any of her other work. Matt Damon is interesting to watch as usual. Peter Stormare and Jonathan Pryce are wacky to the point of annoyance as an Italian torture specialist and a French general. The only truly wonderful performance, however, is that of Mr. Ledger, whose bumbling, scholarly, tag-along Jacob was both a sympathetic character and a side we rarely see from this multi-talented actor.

This is not a movie for everyone (I wouldn't bring children with the tendency for nightmares or irrational fears, for example). It's not a movie you'll learn from or probably want to see hundreds of times. But for the moviegoer looking for beautiful cinematography, a few good laughs, and a fairly suspenseful story, look no further.

Watered-Down Gilliam Is Better Than No Gilliam

[Vulcan91 · 7/10 · 26 August 2005]

Rather than fight yet another war with Hollywood (see: "Brazil", "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen", and "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote"), Terry Gilliam took off his gloves and allowed the Weinsteins and Miramax to force their will upon him. With his new film "Tideland" coming out soon, Gilliam chose to focus his efforts on molding it, while allowing "The Brothers Grimm" to go wherever the studio wanted to take it. The result is by far the most commercial film to Gilliam's name, but in this case watered-down Gilliam is better than no Gilliam, and his first film in seven years ("Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" in 1998) is a fun one.

"The Brothers Grimm" certainly looks like a Terry Gilliam movie, loaded with extravagant visuals and wide angled shots, although the $80 million budget did allow for his first use of CGI (it really isn't too bad, though), and it does not have the incredibly surreal feeling to it that most Gilliam films have. It takes a bit of time to get used to Matt Damon (as Will Grimm) and Heath Ledger, moreso Damon, as Ledger is surprisingly good as Jacob Grimm. The film was much more humorous than I had expected, and has plenty of subtle Gilliam humor. Many will find Peter Stormare' Cavaldi character to be extremely annoying, but I thought he was hilarious, and one of the highlights of the movie. Jonathan Pryce returns to another Gilliam movie as Delatombe, and does a decent job, although his character was a little overly obnoxious at times. Lena Headey is good as Angelika, and Monica Bellucci also pulls off a good performance, although unfortunately she does not get a significant amount of screen time.

The plot of "The Brothers Grimm" wanders a lot, and I actually thought the movie was winding down at around the 90 minute mark, but this works somewhat to the film's advantage, as it makes a fairly straightforward plot seem slightly less predictable. The film is much sillier than the promos may lead to believe, and that probably will not come us much of a surprise to big Gilliam fans. Unlike previous Gilliam movies, however, there really is no substance behind what we see on screen, so what we get is really the first 'popcorn flick' with Gilliam's name on it. Like all Terry Gilliam movies, the reaction will be mixed, and there will be some people who absolutely love it, and some who name it their worst film of the year. As far as I'm concerned, "Grimm" does not hold a candle to Terry Gilliam's previous films, but it is one of the better 'big summer movies', and I certainly felt my time was well spent watching it.

3 stars (out of 4)

Gilliam does Hollywood ...

[Teknofobe70 · 6/10 · 5 September 2005]

Being a fan of both good old-fashioned fantasy movies and of director Terry Gilliam, I was really looking forward to this one. I was slightly put off when I heard Gilliam's complaints about the constant interference of the Brothers Weinstein, but the director does have a history of being dissatisfied with the production of projects which actually turn out pretty good in the end, so my hopes were still pretty high.

Rather than being a historical biography of the famous authors, this is a fantastic make-believe story of the possible inspirations behind the stories of the Brothers Grimm. The brothers travel around Europe working as con artists, fooling simple peasants into believing they are witch-hunters and monster slayers. However, when they are captured by a French general and sent to investigate a town which is believed to have been targeted by similar con-men, they discover that there may be some truth behind the fairy tales. The very woods surrounding the town seem to be alive, a big, bad wolf stalks through the darkness and an evil power seems to emanate from a mysterious ancient tower ...

So, Gilliam tries his hand at doing a commercial summer blockbuster. And the results are, well, interesting. Primarily he shows that he can produce some great action sequences, and there are some really great visual ideas here, many of which I'll admit are entirely thanks to top-notch CGI work. These are the moments when the director's creative magic appears to shine through, and there's enough of them to make this movie worth watching. Overall it does feel strangely derivative for a Gilliam movie, but I suppose that's to be expected when he sacrifices creative control to the studio. In the past I've heard that Gilliam simply sees himself as a "hired hand" on such projects.

However, where it fails is in the mixture of action and drama, in repeatedly placing it's characters in peril whilst also making us care about them. Unfortunately this has been a problem in a lot of these big-budget fantasy/action movies lately, including last years equivalent -- "Van Helsing". The other movie with which this shares a lot in common is Tim Burton's Gothic horror "Sleepy Hollow", which was far superior to either. The main problem with the "Brothers Grimm" is that there's little to no character development in the first hour of the movie, and then almost all of the conflict between the characters is suddenly introduced in one scene. This is what we call bad pacing. And the way the characters are written seems somewhat inconsistent (although both Damon and Ledger manage to turn in decent performances all the same), and we never really get a "feel" for their personalities.

For your average light-hearted Hollywood fantasy, this is perfectly fine. But from a director with a history of making fascinating, important works of surreal art, this is somewhat short of what you'd expect.

Definitely An Interesting Interpretation.

[BigHardcoreRed · 12 September 2005]

The Brothers Grimm is a different movie than what I expected. It turned out to be similar to Big Fish in a way, but a little darker and with some awesome special effects.

Will (Matt Damon) and Jacob Grimm (Heath Ledger) start off as shysters, bamboozling local town people by setting up elaborate and "supernatural" schemes and charging heavily to ward off monsters, witches or anything else.

The story actually starts getting interesting when they run into an actual supernatural occurrence (or fairy tale). It seems that children have been vanishing in some "enchanted woods" and the French believe it is a scam similar to ones the Grimms have pulled.

While fighting off beasts and such, The Brothers Grimm encounter people who obviously inspire stories such as Little Red Riding Hood, Jack & The Beanstalk, Snow White and others. Altogether, things fill out quite nicely. It never comes straight out and says that Grimm's Fairy Tales comes from these stories but it gives the audience enough credit to figure that out on it's own, even though it is quite obvious.

Lena Headey deserves to be mentioned as the lovely Angelika. She plays a hardened and tough hunter/trapper who helps The Grimms and is also the love interest, which I guess is expected. Also, Monica Bellucci was a good addition as the "mirror queen".

I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. Like I said, more than I thought I would have. The special effects were very nice. The trees move realistically like snakes. More believable than some of the giant snake movies I have seen, anyways. I can recommend this movie. If you like Tim Burton style of movies, then you should like this one as well. 8/10

"Grimm" an interesting, creative and visually-intriguing film

[eichelbergersports · 7/10 · 25 August 2005]

Terry Gilliam, the only American member of the Monty Python troupe, and director of such quirky classics as "Brazil," "Time Bandits," "The Fisher King," "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," "The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen" and "Monty Python & The Holy Grail," among others, does it again with bizarre combination of Munchausen and Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hollow," with a little bit of "The Village" thrown in.

This dark-humored film relates the completely-fictional story of the famous German brothers, Wilhelm (Matt Damon) and Jakob (Heath Ledger) Grimm, who created dozens of fairy tales and nursery stories for children in the early 19th Century. True to Gillian's idiosyncratic style, though, the movie plays nothing straight down the line. In this case, the brothers are con artists, traveling through the French-occupied German villages (remember Napoleon was big in those days) and playing on the fears and superstitions of their idiot occupants.

Wearing goofy armor, shouting made-up incantations, and using hidden assistants, sleight of hand and other trickery, they fool these hicks into paying them big money, that is until they are finally captured by French forces, and sent to a town where several young girls have gone missing. The two arrive with little fanfare, as well as several French soldiers and Cavaldi (Peter Stormare, "Birth," "Bad Boys 2"), the evil Italian inquisitor of Gen. Delatombe (Jonathan Pryce, "Brazil") to try and solve the mystery. If they fail, they will be tortured and executed.

Since, of course, they are fakes, they have no idea what they're doing but, with the assistance of a female trapper, they discover a crumbling tower deep within a foreboding forest. The woman remembers her father telling her the story of an evil queen who sealed herself up there to avoid a plague that was killing her subjects. It seems this tower and whatever now lives inside of it may be the cause of all the trouble.

Borrowing heavily from "Sleepy Hollow," the two have gadgets and inventions which were far ahead of their time (and thus completely illogical to those around them). Their efforts to solve the disappearances are clumsy and awkward, but somehow they stumble onto clue after clue. All the while they exchange silly and witty bon mots while trying to outsmart the bad guys and themselves. Even better performances come from Pryce and especially Cavaldi, who is evil, smarmy and pathetic.

Always a stickler for historic details, Gilliam's costumes and set design are perfect for 1804 Europe (the film was shot in Prague), when Napoleon was at the peak of his powers and the continent was pretty much under French control.

Weaved throughout the film are any number of the Grimm fables, including "Cinderella," "Sleeping Beauty," "Rapunzel," "The Frog Prince," "Little Red Riding Hood," "Hansel And Gretel" and "The Gingerbread Man," among others, while the iconoclastic Gilliam throws in subtle and not-too-subtle jokes, dialogue and situations.

Here, many who may not understand or appreciate the director's roots, may turn away and condemn the project, misinterpreting Gilliam's often-frantic camera-work and reliance on special effects as a metaphor for his lack of vision or ingenuity. Nothing could be further from the truth. "Grimm," while certainly not up to the standards set in some of his earlier work, is nonetheless an interesting, creative and visually-intriguing film. Yes, it does tend to bog down every now and then, while the violent comedy, at times, is a bit forced, but, overall, that detracts little from the entire film.

Does not do justice to its subject matter

[kylopod · 4/10 · 8 October 2006]

People have a curious tendency not to notice how bizarre and gruesome children's fairy tales often are. Terry Gilliam's "The Brothers Grimm" does notice. Unfortunately, that's just about its only insight into the subject. The film shows no understanding of what makes fairy tales memorable and exciting, or why they have endured through the ages.

A much better handling of the subject is the 1962 film "The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm," which intersperses a realistic though nonfactual account of the brothers' lives with dramatic recreations of the tales they collected. I'm not saying that Gilliam had to do a retread of the same material. I would be very happy to see a remake with a radically new approach, as long as it respects the underlying subject matter. Gilliam's film does not. Its storyline is mostly a long string of fantasy and horror clichés that remind us far more of contemporary movies than of classic fairy tales. The Big Bad Wolf, for example, has been reduced to a standard-issue wolf-man (brought to life with digital effects that are just a tad too jerky to be excused in our age of high-tech movie-making).

In this version, the brothers (Heath Ledger and Matt Damon, both inexplicably adopting English accents) are con artists who go from town to town posing as conjurers who can protect the local populace from evil spirits. A French general (Jonathan Pryce) catches on to what they're doing and forces them to work for him, on pain of death. But when they're sent to a new town, their old tricks prove useless against an age-old curse that really does haunt the woods.

The movie belongs to the old genre where famous writers become characters in their own stories. It's a genre I've never much liked, maybe because it suggests a failure to comprehend the powers of human imagination. ("No one could have made up these stories; they must have really happened!") But I have enjoyed a few films of this kind, such as the 1979 movie "Time After Time," where H.G. Wells builds a time machine and travels to the 1970s in pursuit of Jack the Ripper. This type of story has to work hard to achieve the willing suspension of disbelief. "The Brothers Grimm" fails on that front because it changes its reality too often. In an early scene, we're shown an intense battle with an awesome-looking banshee. Then the whole battle is revealed to have been staged. And then, later on, we're asked to believe that magic really does exist in this world after all. These repeated shifts in the story's reality are profoundly disorienting.

The source of disarray in the woods is an undead queen (Monica Bellucci) trying to regain her youth in an elaborate spell that will be completed once she sacrifices a series of children from the town. She resides in a tower in the woods, appearing as a skeleton on one side of a mirror and as a beautiful woman on the other. Her magical control over the woods serves as an excuse for numerous scenes of mysterious enchantment, most of which have a very tenuous connection to the central plot. The trees in the forest seem to have a life of their own, walking around when no one's looking. A mysterious creature lurks at the bottom of a well. The wolf-man is a servant of the mirror queen, using magic to ward off would-be visitors. But a coherent story never emerges from these elements. The screenplay seems to make up the rules as it goes along, inventing whatever is convenient at any given moment. Every now and then, some familiar quote is referenced--"Who is the fairest of them all?"; "What big eyes you have"; "You can't catch me, I'm the Gingerbread Man"--but always gratuitously. The movie's magical story is formless and convoluted, lacking any consistent narrative logic. It comes off as a series of elements arbitrarily glued together.

As a result, the magical sequences lack payoff. We keep waiting for something wondrous to happen, then nothing does. In one sequence, for example, two children named Hans and Greta are making their way through the woods, leaving a trail of bread crumbs in their wake. We eagerly await the children's encounter with the gingerbread house run by the cannibalistic witch, or at least something of comparable interest. But just about the only thing that happens is a mysterious sequence involving a levitating shawl. Like many other sequences in the film, this one doesn't go anywhere and has only the faintest connection with the mirror queen story.

No doubt there's an important theme at work in scenes like this. The movie is suggesting that the classic fairy tales are the result of accounts that have been embellished over time. But other writers have handled this theme much more effectively. Gregory Maguire's novel "Wicked," for example, turns "The Wizard of Oz" into a sophisticated adult fantasy with complex character motives and sly social satire. In that novel, there is a definite implication that we are being told the "real" story, and that the conventional version is the corruption. But the novel handles this conceit by expanding on the story, not degrading it. There's no point in creating a revisionist fairy tale if it's going to be less fleshed out than the original.

highly entertaining

[perlner · 7/10 · 29 August 2005]

Are you familiar with the Grimm fairy tales? Did you like the way "Shakespeare in Love" explained how Shakespeare might have gotten his ideas for "Romeo and Juliet?" Did you like "Shrek?" Are you a fan of Matt Damon or Heath Ledger? Do you think Monica Bellucci is hot? If your answer to any of the above questions is "yes," and you are willing to suspend disbelief (because boy is this movie inconsistent if you actually think about it) this film will provide an entertaining diversion. It's funny, interesting, exciting, and even a little scary (so don't bring your little children if they get scared easily).

The premise - Matt Damon and Heath Ledger are the Brothers Grimm, famous around French-occupied Germany for driving away demons, though they are, in fact, con artists with fancy gadgets and conspirators for special effects. They use the money they collect for their "services" to finance their operations. The French occupying government catches them and sentences them to death, unless they out-con the conman who is causing little girls to disappear in a town alongside the woods. In this town and the neighboring woods are the inspirations for numerous Grimm fairy tales, including Hansel & Gretel, Rapunzel, and Little Red Riding Hood.

The characters aren't the most deep of film characters, but they are developed enough to be distinctive and convincing. Will Grimm (Matt Damon) is the brains behind the team, with a very realistic desire to protect his brother, even as he harbors a constant anger at him for blowing the only opportunity to save their little sister's life when they were children. Jake (Heath Ledger) is the dreamer, convinced that there is truth in legend, and that with courage and effort, any problem can be solved. Predictably but not boringly, the two of them provide the perfect team to fight what turns out to be a real-life, magical, evil danger.

The special effects aren't the best; some of the cgi creatures move quite jerkily, but when they're good, they work. The sets are beautiful, and fit the Grimm fairy tale world well. The costumes are likewise gorgeous and apt.

If you think about this film enough to ask questions like, "if evil magic was real, how come the brothers are famous instead of having been discredited the first time they pretended to fight off a real evil presence and it continued to haunt people?" then you will be disappointed. However, if you are willing to suspend disbelief, you'll be in for an entertaining summer popcorn treat.

Damon, Ledger, and CGI, oh my!

[TheScottman · 3/10 · 5 July 2006]

The beginning of this movie sucked me in and I really wanted to see how it all came together. As the movie went on though, I found it getting progressively worse. Everything that was a special effect in the movie was CGI and poorly done CGI at that. I could understand the wolf standing on two legs, but trees are CGI and spider webs are CGI. It just got so ridiculous I started to lose interest. Everyone's character is over the top without any point to it. The references to the grimm tales was really the only thing in this movie that seemed like they put thought into it (at first), but then they got sloppy with even that.

The cast wasn't bad, but it was just seemed like there was no direction for this film. They wanted it to be a grimm tale, but with a modern way of telling it. The first five minutes like I said sucked me in and I was waiting for them to build off of that moment in Jacob's life. Then it becomes a whole other movie. I was happy I didn't spend any money to see this, I found myself thinking (after every CGI moment) "What was I thinking?" I still have no answer for that question.

In my opinion this movie isn't worth any kind of fee. If you want to see it borrow it from a friend or find another (legal) way to view it without paying. When or if you see this movie don't let the first five minutes trick you, the movie will only get worse from there.

Not the fairest one of all...though with some marvelous compensations

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 22 March 2007]

Squabbling brothers in France-occupied Germany circa 1811 have manufactured a heroic image for themselves as witch-hunters and tall-tale tellers, but when a decrepit witch in an enchanted forest begins stealing maidens for their youthful blood, the duo find themselves up against real evil for the first time. Terry Gilliam-directed fantasy has incredible production values, cinematography and scoring (not to mention two appealing lead performances by Matt Damon and Heath Ledger), yet it takes a good hour to get this picture off the ground. The narrative is heavy-going and, while not a hodgepodge, the film could certainly use a bit more heart and soul rather than CGI effects. Gilliam's handling takes on a more robust, old-fashioned flavor in the second hour, and the movie improves tremendously as a result. The witch's palace (set atop a skyscraper tree) is dazzling, and the initial entrance into her raven-laden lair is deliciously giddy. Jonathan Pryce is well-cast as an evil general who attempts to torch the two men in an impressive forest fire, however the charm of the piece (and the glue holding the adventure together) lies with Damon and Ledger, and they are by turns wily, funny, strapping, childish, and heroic. **1/2 from ****

Do people read any more? A folk tale for adults.

[sschwa · 9/10 · 5 March 2006]

Like his Baron Munchhausen, Gilliam's Brothers Grimm has been horridly misunderstood by critics and public alike. What I get from the comments and reviews is the sense of thwarted expectations, although I have little idea what the anti-Grimms expected in the first place. People dislike the kitten scene because it's a cute kitten. This I find entirely in the grotesque spirit of the original folk tales. We've learned to take our fairy tales Disneyfied, apparently. I've also heard complaints about the quality of the special effects as sub-ILM quality. Frankly, that's what I liked about them. They *didn't* look like ILM; they looked personal. I admit I found the basic premise a cliché (two con men who make their living on the superstitious gullible find out that, in this case, the magic is real), but its working-out overcomes this basic flaw. This is a movie that shuns cliché. The brightest scenes, for example, almost always contain the greatest menace. Relative safety is drab, dirty, brutish, nasty, and short. Ledger gives an amazing performance -- I had previously regarded him as a Troy Donahue update. Matt Damon shows he has the chops to cross over from small "indies" to big performances in the old leading-man vein. Peter Stromare and Jonathan Pryce do a highbrow Martin & Lewis -- Stromare all over the place and Pryce coolly self-contained -- to hilarious effect. The faces alone in this movie are wonderful, hearkening back to the glory days of Leone. There are so many telling details in the background ("Bienvenue a Karlstadt") -- let alone the foreground -- that show Gilliam's mastery. Harry Potter (which I enjoyed), Lord of the Rings, and Chronicles of Narnia are for the kiddies and show us worlds we can, with effort, control. Gilliam doesn't offer any such comfort, not even at the end. The sense of menace is overwhelming, and Gilliam achieves it without super-special effects, usually camera movement (the shots following Little Red Riding Hood through the forest made my jaw drop). A brilliant film, operating at a high level we don't see much of these days. Someone compared the movie to Burton's Big Fish, another film dismissed or ignored by critics and public. Although Burton's and Gilliam's sensibilities differ, I take the writer's point. The confident, poetic handling of myth and archetype in both astonishes.

Flawed, but well-performed fantasy-horror!

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 17 June 2009]

Terry Gilliam's Brothers Grimm tells the story of the disappearances of several girls, and so enter the Brothers Grimm. Matt Damon and Heath Ledger are both excellent in the title roles, Ledger especially with a more sympathetic portrayal than expected. I liked Peter Stromare and Jonathan Pryce here too. The film is full of clever nods to their fairy tales. The production design is a wonder, with lavish sets and colourful costumes, and there is some evidence of some detailed direction, if a little too serious. However, I wasn't keen on Lena Headey's performance as the main female character, and the storyline is very daft, and sometimes in the middle half bordered on getting a bit too silly. The script was okay, but perhaps because of the story it was underdeveloped, and cheesy in some places, and it was further undermined by a rather anti-climatic conclusion, that left me a little confused. Still, not a bad film, not awful but not great either. It is well performed and well designed, but is let down by the story and script mainly. 6/10 Bethany Cox.

Boring and frustrating movie

[donald-martin-175-873978 · 2/10 · 14 September 2013]

This movie is very tedious to watch. The story is a "mystery" a 2-year-old could solve and the story could have been told out in 5 minutes. The movie amounts to a couple of hours of endless bumbling and plot conveniences and some really poor CGI effects. The characters are unsympathetic morons that no one could possibly give a crap about and the villain should have been able to be stopped at the first encounter if it wasn't for the pure idiocy of the protagonists. Damon and Ledger are only in it for the paycheck and show no special talent in their performances. The story is forgettable 5 minutes after viewing. A total waste of $80 million! I do not recommend wasting your time on it.

Monica's Eye

[tedg · 14 October 2007]

No one wants Gilliam to succeed more than I do. He likes the kind of nesting that I do: stories within stories, performances within performances. He truly believes in other words, or shadows of this one. And he is exclusively a visual thinker. No, that's not quite right because he's missing on the thinking side — let's say he has a cinematic imagination.

The problem is that he's a flake. He understands little of storytelling, and essentially none of the subtler points of the performing arts. So in the worst case get pages from children's' books that might be clever if we fill in around the little words. In the best case (Fear and Loathing, Parts of 12 Monkeys, fewer parts of Brazil), we get something that matters, even in the small. There's a connection that slides under humor, that skirts around polished philosophies, something that needs no explanation at all, just discipline in receiving the light.

So I always go into one of his projects with trepidation. Its a love that has structural obstacles, that when it works is lovely and natural and right. And when not, you're tempted to blame yourself.

This does have the overall idea: showmen specializing in magical stories encounter "real" magic based on a pre-existing and known story, which becomes known in a sort of retroactive projection through the writings of these same brothers. That bit is sweet. And Heath Ledger is really pretty interesting in how he chooses to amuse. As with Johnny Depp, a clever actor can fill in the spaces that Gilliam doesn't care about. Its a small amusement which would add to a good movie, but which cannot save a bad one.

Gilliam's choices in the small are nice though. Flaming crucifixes, mirror shards that see, bugs and holes, a contempt for the French style of storytelling.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Liked it once I understood the intended feel

[danielle_sh · 7/10 · 11 September 2005]

I thought it felt more like a cartoon at first, to such an extent that I was rather bored and annoyed after about a third of the way in. Then I thought about it and I realized the cartoon-like feel was a way to accent the larger than life fairy tales that came down through history from the Brothers Grimm. If you keep that in mind then you will enjoy the movie for what it is from the very beginning. Warning though: this is a guy adventure movie and therefore a bit more gruesome than you might expect (not a kids show!). It is MUCH more faithful to the original European tales which were told to scare young children into behaving rather than the whitewashed versions that came to be told in the US. I.E. you will see the bogeymen of past eras rather than cuddly characters used to put you to sleep as a child.

Stop blaming Gilliam, blame writing a third grader could've produced

[Adamjammer · 6/10 · 26 August 2005]

To be candid, I'm a big Gilliam fan since his Python days, so this review may be a bit biased. However I fully stand by my claim that Gilliam shares the smallest of blame for this movie while %99.999 lies on the idiot who wrote the "story" (and I use the term loosely.) It's pretty clear when the parts that Gilliam devised appear on screen, as they have his distinct and slightly manic touch to them. These in and of themselves are good, not overwhelming like in some of his movies, but distinct, funny (in a dark manner mostly) and again, very good. Where Gilliam's personality shines, so does the movie in my opinion.

The rest, is cookie-cutter garbage, and not very intelligible garbage either. I try to give movies the benefit of the doubt these days, as it seems to be getting harder and harder to be creative and imaginative, but that's no excuse to go in the opposite direction. The writer fulfills every cliché with only one or two having a slightly creative twist, and the rest of the story is forgettable and even confusing. You have to constantly remind yourself where you are, why this person is doing what and most of the time the motives behind the actions are a complete mystery. Another tip is that having the characters go into the woods, out of the woods, into the woods, out of the woods and basically all over half of europe does not make for an understandable (not to mention creative) story. The lines are made passeable by Damon and Ledger, but only a few moments are laugh out loud funny, and these are mostly due to the actors and not the actual words. Anything exciting/funny/suspenseful/dramatic comes either from Gilliam or Damon and Ledger.

Maybe it should have been a tip-off that the writer of this script also wrote Scream 3. Pairing him with Gilliam is a match made in hell, specifically for Gilliam himself.

Confusing and joyless

[Floated2 · 3/10 · 8 September 2018]

The Brothers Grimm is quite a fairy tale fantasy film set in the 1700's. Having no knowledge of the source material, the film doesn't do too much justice as it was quite confusing and boring all around. The film's premise is promising. The film isn't about the real Brothers Grimm; it's a fairy tale within a fairy tale set during the early Enlightenment, when superstition and mythology still ran rampant. All together the film has decent visuals but the story is lacking and not in the least engaging enough.

A fairy tale for adults ensues.

[TheMovieMark · 7/10 · 26 August 2005]

At no point in the development process of The Brothers Grimm did anybody set out to create a film that would one day air on A&E's Biography. Instead, Terry Gilliam has chosen to take the real life Grimm Brothers, wrap them up into the fictional, fairy tale world they created within their stories, and create a fairy tale about *them*.

The result is a visually impressive story that follows the brothers' rise from frauds to heroes, all within the context of humor, fantasy, horror, and romance. If you're part of the growing number of moviegoers who constantly complains that nothing fresh and original ever comes out of Hollywood then here's an alternative. However, you might want to leave the children at home. Gilliam has delivered a somewhat dark fairy tale for an older crowd, and he obviously didn't bother himself with making sure this was safe for the average kindergartener. Thank goodness.

The Brothers Grimm feels like it was made for those of us who grew up with Grimm fairy tales, so you need to pay close attention for the clever nods to characters from the original stories (particularly Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel & Gretel, and The Gingerbread Man). I've seen the movie twice, and I was surprised to find that I caught quite a few things the second time I saw the movie that I missed the first time around.

A lot of the references are subtle and won't be appreciated by the average moviegoer who has no reference to the source material. I overheard one teenage boy at the screening sarcastically remark, "What's next, the Big Bad Wolf? Why is the Gingerbread Man in this?" Hey man, do you read much? Ever break away from action movies starring Ice Cube? No? Then try heading to the library someday, indulge in a little self-education, and broaden those movie horizons.

Keeping in mind that Gilliam decided to let his off-the-wall imagination run wild every now and then, you might want to forewarn any friends that are animal lovers. I have one friend who doesn't mind seeing humans get killed left and right in movies, but she's reluctant to see any movie where an animal suffers fictional harm. Go figure. I don't want to reveal too much, but there's one scene in particular where I actually found myself audibly saying, "Oh man." I laughed, and I should probably feel guilty about it, but nah, every now and then it's healthy for us to allow the darker side of our sense of humor to prevail.

Do things get a little goofy, a little cartoonish, and a little over-the-top at times? Of course! It's directed by the only American-born actor from Monty Python, so what else are you expecting? If you're willing to embrace a small amount of your PG-13 dark side, and you love letting yourself get wrapped up in fantasy and fairy tale worlds, then you very likely well find a lot to enjoy in The Brothers Grimm.

worst movie I've seen this year

[ramonesobsessed · 1/10 · 30 August 2005]

The Brothers Grimm was extremely disappointing. I love Terry Gilliam movies, so I was excited to see this, but there is very little Terry Gilliam-like about this film. The jokes (although constantly attempted) are never funny, and the script in general needs some serious help. The movie starts out well enough with the Brothers Grimm as con-artists, duping townspeople into paying a small fortune to have a witch vanquished. It could have been a very good movie if it continued along this path. Instead, it degenerates into a plot of loosely thrown together bits of fairy tails and amateurish acting. The whole tough-girl-who-knows-what-she's-doing-but-still-needs-to-be-rescued thing with "the Cursed" is so played out and tired that it's almost sad. And the townspeople call her "the Cursed" because her father and sisters were killed? That hardly warrants spitting after saying her name (another tired joke)!!! The worst is saved for last with a happy ending that is SO not out of a Grimm fairy tale. It makes you wonder... has anyone working on this movie actually read any of the Brother's Grimm's work? Or did they just see the Disney version?

the brothers dimm

[pookey56 · 6/10 · 22 December 2005]

when i heard that Terry Gilliam was releasing a new film, with Matt Damon and Heath Ledger no less, about a genre that i love, i was over-joyed. I watched it in the theatres and then again on DVD, just to make sure my first impression wasn't off base. i'm not going to give away any of the story because there's nothing to give away. sure, there was Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, Snow White, Hansel and Gretel, Rapunsel, all which led nowhere, except perhaps to lie in a stone coffin with brother werewolf's help all so that a five-hundred year old wicked witch could get her looks back. and mirrors, creepy mirrors, a familiar motif. and boy, she looked five hundred too. there was a dash of Sleepy Hollow, a pinch of Harry Potter, and the plot-line of Full Frontal only without the experiment. the art direction was OK and the period pieces were OK too. i'm struggling to find good things to say about this film because i have tons of respect for Terry Gilliam. Hence the six out of ten. my recommendation is that you wait until it comes to television. i wouldn't rent it. i think what Terry did best was somehow dumb down the sexiest guys around. they looked like extras from the town of dueling banjos. i didn't think that was possible.

Put the cap back on the blender, Terry--you'll have less of a mess...

[Jonny_Numb · 3/10 · 24 March 2006]

Wow...woah...what the hell...? "The Brothers Grimm" is yet another long-shelved project at Dimension Pictures that has gotten a less-than-flattering release on all counts. This tale of Will and Jake Grimm (Matt Damon and Heath Ledger), two brothers who go from town to town, staging elaborate supernatural stunts to extort money from hapless citizens has promising talent in front of and behind the camera (Terry Gilliam directs), but is ultimately a film as catastrophic as it is charmless.

The green-screened special effects are very poor in certain scenes (as if background detail wasn't filled in), the plot (what can be deciphered, that is) is schizophrenic and generally disposable, and the dialog (delivered with mediocre-to-poor accents) is largely incomprehensible. And while these are trademarks of any Gilliam film, "The Brothers Grimm" renders such conventions with an indifference that is stultifying; the constant sense of "huh?" I got from the plot kept me from soaking up or appreciating any of the aesthetic qualities contained therein. Which is a shame, since--in a lot of ways--"Brothers Grimm" is as brilliantly eye catching (minus the aforementioned green-screening) as anything Gilliam has done.

But it fails...and fails...and fails some more. And it drags on for nearly two hours. While I appreciate Gilliam's work on a stylistic level, I find him easier to take in smaller doses, if only because of his trademark tendency to clutter the screen with bizarre events, items, and people at all times. "The Brothers Grimm" is too busy, too nonsensical, and too shruggingly presented to elicit a reaction (other than exhaustion and indifference)--an epic of visual brilliance and missed opportunity.

So there is a use to enchantment!

[muffingoddess38 · 9/10 · 2 September 2005]

I don't think myself overly literary for reading Bruno Bettelheim's "The Uses of Enchantment," but forgive me for being obscure. In his book, Bettelheim analyzes common fairy tales for their underlying psychological and cultural meanings. He makes a great argument for the telling of fairy tales, even if they are slightly (or more than slightly) graphic, which is why I am partly able to explain my fascination with this film.

It's not really overly good really, as you've probably seen more of a seven out of ten, but yet it fascinates me. Perhaps it's the psychological element between the two brothers (which is done quite well) about the importance/existence of magic, or the surreal score peppered with Brahms and Dario Marianelli originals. (I have no idea who this guy is, but the soundtrack is so weird that I want it.) Perhaps it's the horror invoked by the fairy tale images of our childhood, brought horribly to life in the (thankfully) twisted mind of Terry Gilliam.

Oh, a little note about Terry Gilliam. You're going to have to forgive him because his pace can be a little bit feverish, and he tends to lose the viewer that's not paying attention. (He did make "Time Bandits" and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," and you know how much of THAT made sense.) Do not question how the Grimm boys get from one end of Germany to another so quickly. Your head will explode.

Basically, this film makes me happy for a couple of reasons: one, the dialogue. It's strangely antiquated one minute, then purely Hollywood the next. (Don't worry about the anachronisms they're supposed to be there, they're funny.) Two, his name starts with Heath and ends with Ledger. Now, I didn't used to like this guy. I thought he was just a deep throated Aussie, but the boy's got range. I didn't know he could lack confidence so well. (Now I'm teasing, but really, he's quite good.) Damon was wonderful as always, proving over and over again that he may not be the prettier, but he's the smarter half of "Ben-att". Three, they're fairy tales in their ghoulish, bloody glory. Wait till you see both Little Red Riding Hood scenes, you'll totally freak out. It's nightmarish in such a way that you can't take your eyes off it. It's not morbid fascination, like a car accident, but something deeper, the sense of childlike wonder that make kids watch the most disgusting thing (like insects or TOADS) for hours.

What is the point? You might ask. Why should I see this piece of rubbish instead of "The 40 Year Old Virgin" for the 6th time? Or, in the long run, rent "The Princess Bride"? (You should rent both by the way, it'd make a lovely double feature.) Well, I still can't watch the waxing scene, but here's the real point: Fairy tales have a purpose. They give us comfort when we are in crises, and delight and frighten us when we need to have fun. What we see in Ledger's character (Jacob) is the child who shelters himself with fairy tales. What we see in Damon's (the older, Will) is the adult who wants to take him away from him. And as Bettelheim says, fantasy is not nearly as cruelly unforgiving as reality, so let him keep them. I still need a little Sleeping Beauty now and then. There's something strangely comforting about waking to true love's kiss.

Strangely dissatisfying for Gilliam fans

[Buddybaba · 7/10 · 19 December 2005]

This was a movie I would have expected from Hallmark. Good filmed work. A fun premise. Decent action. Slightly annoying accents.

I won't be dwelling on the images for much longer than it takes to finish this review. I probably would have been disappointed if I had paid Ten Bucks in the theater but for the cost of a rental I'd recommend it. But this was not Brazil, Time Bandits, Fisher King, and especially not Fear and Loathing.

What's up Terry? Did Don Quixote's loss take the fire out of your breath.

I'll wait for the next real Terry Gilliam movie but for fun family entertainment it's better than a lot of what's out there.

Was it made under the influence of recreative drugs?

[billion_mucks · 5/10 · 2 November 2007]

Im asking exactly that. Though Terry Gilliam is one eccentric movie director, I see in the movie anything but a fantasy story. Keep, your children out of this.

Im putting a five because I wanna be impartial. The movie seems simple, an outlandish story with appealing visual features. But I have the awkward sensation that there is much to read in between lines, and many are obscure messages. Some scenes are really shocking; like the one having the horse digest a child, or an ogre hunting kids and humming a spectral and diabolic tune.

Bizarre movie, shocked my senses. I didn't fully conceive it, understand it, comprehend it. And for some reason, I don't want so.

Did they make this up as they went along?

[rooprect · 24 February 2018]

There have been some great films that were essentially written during filming. Wim Wenders' "Wings of Desire" comes to mind, a visual & philosophical feast that was born out of 10 short poems. And of course the greatest comedy ever made, "This Is Spinal Tap" was basically improvised from start to finish. Here we have the opposite: a film which was probably carefully planned, but it feels like they're making it up because, oh LORDY, some of the plot points are barely recognizable as sensible.

The story jumps around, presumably referencing different Grimm's fairytales (wink, nod, move on) culminating in the worst story resolution I've ever seen since the Magical Mr. Mestopholes hopped on a giant tire and floated up to heaven. You've heard of the phrase "Deus ex machina"? Well, the Brothers Grimm takes that concept to the brink of Dumbass ex machina.

But that's not my biggest gripe. My biggest gripe is that the great Terry Gilliam ("Brazil", "The Fisher King", "12 Monkeys", "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas") directs this movie obviously trying his best to be Tim Burton and forcing Matt Damon to do his best Johnny Depp, but really he should've stuck with what he's good at: being Terry Gilliam.

I'll explain. Terry Gilliam's (good) movies are subtle; they breathe; they are drenched in sarcasm so deep that punchlines are not necessary. His violence is disturbing in a meaningful way, much like Tarantino does in films like "Pulp Fiction", making us laugh at the horror not the slapstick. Here we get slapstick, but with gross stuff. Big difference. If this is indeed a "fairytale for adults", then the adults for whom it's intended are probably in need of a good fart joke to cap the night.

Everyone is trying too hard to be funny (with the exception of Heath Ledger who does a great job as the sole "straight man" in this barrage of silly). And Matt Damon, don't get me wrong, is a great actor and very funny, but not in the straight faced Johnny Depp way that Gilliam was obviously coaching him to do.

The result is a weird mix of "The Three Stooges" and some hyper violent videogame, all played by a cast of great actors who should've really been allowed to be themselves rather than playing clowns. Add to the mix the aforementioned scotch taped plot, and you have yourself a bona fide waste of incredible talent.

Watch Tim Burton/Johnny Depp in "Sleepy Hollow" instead. I guarantee you that's what Gilliam was trying hard to recreate, but there's only so much you can do with a choppy, silly plot line like we have here. To any Terry Gilliam fans reading this, you might want to run away from this film. Let's just sorta sweep it under the rug like it never happened, sort of like the Star Wars Christmas Special.