What do you think of this story?

Click here to send a message to the editor.

Bad Links?
Other glitches?
Notify Webmaster

The Brothers Grimm: Lost in the Woods

If there was ever a movie that deserved the phrase, “can’t see the forest for the trees,” it’s Terry Gilliam’s long awaited take on spooky fairy-tales, “The Brothers Grimm.” For all its atmosphere and gobs of detail, there isn’t much bubbling to the surface of this witches brew. It looks scary and it sounds scary, but it’s actually kind of boring.

Matt Damon and Heath Ledger do their best to flesh out Wilhelm and Jacob Grimm respectively. Their real challenge doesn’t come from the supernatural antics of a centuries old queen as the story would have you believe. Their problem is Terry Gilliam.

The director hurtles them through this tale as if they are being dragged by runaway horses. The two brothers flail at their surroundings in a vain attempt to take control of what is flying past them, but they know it’s too late when they see Gilliam astride the steed.

There are flashes here and there of the wonderful imagery that is stuffed into every frame. The camera, however, never seems to look at it. This is a movie in need of a cinematographer. The sets are inspiring. Unfortunately, the shots of them are not. One of the few images I can remember enjoying for its haunting beauty is when a flock of crows go flying up around a tall tower hidden in a dense forest. The shot lasts about one and a half seconds and then its back to the story at hand.

There isn’t much of a story to speak of, so I won’t. Let’s just say that Gilliam has a swell time working in characters and details from many stories. We see Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel, The evil queen from Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, the Gingerbread Boy, and the beans from Jack and the Bean Stalk. I suppose the idea was to show how the eerie world in which the Grimms lived fed their imagination. It’s a nice idea for a movie. It’s just done very poorly.

It doesn’t matter how much money and time and detail is poured into a production. If there isn’t a strong story underpinning it, it just a big bore. Gilliam has even said that he preferred not to work with a tightly written script. I think his real problem is that he’s a visual artist and not a writer. He thinks movies are carried along by the visual element alone. The story is secondary. He should know better.

And it’s a real shame because the sets are fantastic. They should transport you out of the here and now into another world, but they don’t. There’s nothing that keeps you there, not the camera work, not the acting, and certainly not the story. Usually when you see a film a second time, you can notice more of the details since you’re already familiar with the story. In this movie, I was already scooping out the corners and the crevices for something interesting. Alas, the spell was usually broken by bad CGI insects or a really unconvincing CGI wolf. As high-tech as that stuff is, it looks really clunky. Special effects should feel seamless. These just made me fidgit.

I’m reminded of an older film by Ridley Scott called “Legend.” It got terrible reviews, but I loved it. It was cinematic is the best sense of the word and really felt like a fantasy story. It had a great sense of drama. I think that’s what’s missing from this movie. There’s no elegance to it. It’s choppy and it feels rushed and underdone. Maybe next time Terry will sit down and make sure he has a movie to make before he makes one.