MovieChat Forums > The Brothers Grimm (2005) Discussion > This Movie is unwatchable

This Movie is unwatchable

posted 18 years ago by supertamsf
68 replies | jump to latest

I was also really looking forward to this - it seemed like a great set up but it's just, just well blech.

Down to the basics - honestly the sound was aweful weird. I got fixated on it.

[–] anreq 18 years ago

and I am not fan of adventures and fantasy films. Harry Potter always makes me sleep but I couldn't stop watching this. I think it is a good film that deserves to be watched. The actors and Gillian did a great job!

[–] kito_drak 18 years ago

I really feel sorry for anyone who watched this movie, paid attention, and actually thought it was good. IMHO this movie is total *beep* the acting is terrible, the lines make me cringe, and the props couldn't look any cheasier. Towards the end it got better, but that's only because they stopped talking and Jacob stabbed his brother (hilarious). But honestly, people who actually thought this movie was good need to either get serious about critiquing movies, or find another hobby.

[–] guicou 18 years ago

i'm with you, kito. boring. who can compare this film with tim burton's films?

[–] the_angry_princess 18 years ago

Who said anything about comparing this film to any of Tim Burton's? It's a similar genre yes, but so?!

[–] geekwad 17 years ago

I think the comparison is especially appropreate. Burton went from making dark, offbeat movies to making mock-dark fluffy crap. Just like Bros. Grimm.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jbmiller100 18 years ago

Dude

This was the F'ing Godfather of fantasy movies. The writing was genius. The acting put all Oscar winners to shame. And let's not even go into the effects, when the brothers are flying around the tower trying to stab each other, it was straight 70's technology.

People that bad mouth this movie don't know poop and should just go and drink a gallon of Jonestown Kool-aid. Suckers.

So let's sit for a drink. This movie sucked.

"Think of something witty and assume that I said it"

[–] heartattack4444 18 years ago

Hell, at least it wasn't as bad as Lost in Translation...*shudders*

And all the Wookiees say I'm pretty fly for a Jedi!

[–] fydiousmckormick 13 years ago

nothing is as bad as lost in translation. this is extremely good actually however. any complaints about special effects shots that don't look good enough are not the filmmakers fault. they needed about one more month of post but weinstein wouldn't pay for it. there are a ton effects shots that you don't even notice as effects shots because they are so well done and seemless. this movie has far more depth than any other fantasy film that has came out in past 20 years.

[–] fydiousmckormick 13 years ago

not counting imaginarium of doctor parnassus. one of the best films ever made. too intelligent for american audiences though. europe and japan appreciate gilliam in much greater numbers than people here. most americans are proud to be stupid and don't want to think when they watch movies. they tend to think art is supposed to be a passive experience that you just sit and watch or listen to.

[–] blueeyedguy25 18 years ago

To JBMILLER:

"People that bad mouth this movie don't know poop and should just go and drink a gallon of Jamestown Kool-aid. Suckers."

Obviously you have been dozing again in your remedial history class after you got off the little short orange bus for the "special" kids or you would know it was Jonestown.

Jamestown was a historical American colony in New England!!!!

Moron!

[–] tac9802 17 years ago

Actually Jamestown was in Virginia, which is nowhere near New England. but I will be polite and not call you a moron.

[–] jbmiller100 17 years ago

You both are correct.

tac9802 - Your geography was impeccable.

Blueeyedguy25 – Your observation of my historical mistake was correct. I have made that edit so it is historically accurate.

But that still didn’t change the fact that this movie sucked.

"Think of something witty and assume that I said it"

[–] stifsplif 17 years ago

oh *beep*

[–] rage311-1 16 years ago

Actually being the original English colony in America, I would call it New England, as I am sure they did at the time.

[–] mnaevaa 17 years ago

okay . uhm dude . he said jonestown . if you READ the actual post, then you would def. know .

and for the reference about the special bus , thats rude and apalling, considereing you dont know if people on this site who read your posts know
kids that need extra help sometimes .

[–] ariadne_au 18 years ago

I just saw this movie and I enjoyed it! but then I don't watch movies to critique them...I watch them for enjoyment, relaxation, to escape from reality... I thought the acting wasn't that bad... have seen a lot worse, have also seen a lot worse get awards for *beep*sake!

[–] Noir-It-All 16 years ago

I grew up on Grimm's Fairy Tales so always wanted to see it. I rented it and saw it last night. I got into the location, the forest, art direction, the gorgeous Matt and Heath. The best person in the film was the Trapper. My favorite genre is Film Noir so it's not like I must watch sweetness and light. But, the film was just too much for me. I may have chosen the wrong day to watch it.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] femilang 17 years ago

this movie was a let down and left me not caring about the story or lack of it within 20 minutes of starting it.
Peter Stormare who is usually really good was either totally miscast or completly misdirected by a director who seems to have rushed through this movie leaving just a trace of his signature weirdness and not much else.
its strange that no ones mentioned the fact that Matt Damon does a crap English accent. Johnathan Pryce's french accent was laughable but strangley enough the funniest thing in the movie.
i give it a 2.5 at best.

[–] orlando02 17 years ago

re KIto drak's comment, I agree it was quite cheesy, but i think that was deliberate. It wasn;t played completely straight

[–] gasdreamer-1 17 years ago

what? ur a serious critic? yeh right, just by reading ur comment i can say ur in no place to be a critic. u obvously know nothing about movies. nice try bitch

"RESPEK"

[–] suikoden_sigurd 16 years ago

This makes me think more as to why no one takes notice of critics... because they know jack about what people like.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] InUrFridge 15 years ago

the props couldn't look any cheasier.

I know that 'kito_drak' wrote that back in 2006 but boy are they a retard.

As are the rest of you who don't like it. I hate to use the expression but you clearly didn't "get it".

Thank you, goodnight.

[–] jpgonc 18 years ago

Amazing how people sleep whilst seeing Harry Potter and yet enjoying at the same time this pile of dung of Grimm's Brothers. OK, nice sets but that's all. Clichéd to the bone and nonsense/pathetic attempt to make comic remarks! This is a movie for children!

[–] munnywabbit 15 years ago

Replying, several years later.

Cliche was the point.

Qui cherche trouve.

[–] ShootTheSchoolChildren 18 years ago

if you think this movie is unwatchable you havent really experienced bad movies.
try watching glen or glenda, crocidile(ithinkthatsthenameofit), blood games, now these are bad films.

FROM ALL THE WAY IN THE BACK OF THE FOOD STAMP LINE.

[–] klp_16 18 years ago

I thought this movie would be great. I love fantasy and fairy tales but I couldn't believe how much I disliked this movie. It would have been an okay film should they have left out the jumping around to different stories. If they had stuck with the fairy tales only, I would have enjoyed it enough to not claim it as one of the most disappointing movies. The scene where the brothers are put in the torture chamber and a cat is murdered was not needed, nor was the story line around this part.

Point: If you are going to have a story all about the Brother's Grimm fairy tales don't add random German torture into the mix. It takes out of the fantasy world being built by their stories and makes you lose interest.

[–] Hyokano 18 years ago

I can't believe anyone would praise the acting in this film. The only people I thought to have really put their talent into work was Heath Ledger and Monica Bellucci. Matt Damon's accent was just horrid!! But besides that, the characters parts for the film were terrible too. The brothers don't seem to be getting along as much can be anticipated, nobody get's the heroin, Peter Storemare's so called "Italian" character's change of heart doesn't make any sense, and the General is an idiot. What a waste of a good topic... They could have done better.

[–] JennyD_621 18 years ago

I couldn't agree with you more klp_16

[–] Sanek_2006 18 years ago

<<They could have done better.>>!!!

I completely agree with this - the movie could've been better. Some acting was good, some was bad, but if you look past this, the movie is quite good.

Overall, if you love fairy tales and you can look past some bad acting and some dumb characters, you should be able to enjoy this movie, as it does look like a fairy tale.

[–] sebastianVIII 18 years ago

I won't call anyone a moron (what's the point?), but I can't get on board with complimenting this movie. Thankfully, most of the actors have proven their ability with other films, as has Terry Gilliam, because this is no feather in their caps. It's a good premise wasted, an uneven script and pacing, and even the attempts at camp humour fall flat. Regrettably, even the special effects were disappointing for 2005. All of the CG elements look extremely CG, detatched from the live action elements. I took frequent breaks while watching it (off for a snack, check my e-mail, etc.) just because I didn't care that much.

[–] corpsefullofdope 18 years ago

If you are going to have a story all about the Brother's Grimm fairy tales don't add random German torture into the mix. It takes out of the fantasy world being built by their stories and makes you lose interest.

umm... you ever actually read any of their original works? it's some of the darkest most violent stuff out there. random german torture and the Grimms were tight like crossed fingers, son.

[–] eerrr 18 years ago

this movie sucks!
die this movie!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jsblakemore 17 years ago

Okay...

In a sea of intolerably bad movies, this was an oasis of fun. I've read some of the "critiques" people have written here and I'm scratching my head. "All of the German characters had English accents", "the stories weren't the real Grimm fairie tales", "the ITALIAN TORTURER WAS A BAD ACTOR"(!)?

This brand of nit-picking is just going WAY beyond silly.

1) The movie takes place in Germany. It's pretty obvious that they'd be speaking German if we (the audience) were expected to take a class in German to watch the movie. If they all would have adopted German accents, it would have gotten tedious VERY quickly (and you nit-pickers would have whined about THAT), so they chose an accent that was easiest for all of us to UNDERSTAND. Shame on Gilliam for being creative!

2) In the reality of this film, Jake is WRITING the stories from the lore he hears as he and Will travel. He WANTS to believe that magic exists because of the gaff he made as a child (believing in "magic beans" and being fooled by a con man. Jake is a believer, Will is a cynic. They are later faced with a reality they never knew existed and it incorporates ELEMENTS of the Grimm stories. That's the premise of the film, people. Not liking the premise of a film isn't a valid criticism of the film itself in my opinion. It's more of a "frustrated writer" thing to do. When you write YOUR version of The Brothers Grimm, you can compare your premise to this one and pat yourself on the back. Until then, criticise the film that you SAW, not the one you would have written.

If you have more trouble with that premise than you do with 12 hours of midgets carrying a ring to a volcano, I think you might be the ones with the problem here. This isn't a documentary. Jeez!

3) I really don't know how to address the comments on Peter Stromare. He isn't a native English speaker, but he's done more with his heavy accented stylism (in films like "Fargo", "15 Minutes" and the Television show "Prison Break") than most American "stars" have done in their native tongue. He was playing an over-the-top character and found the humour. Pity most of you couldn't.

Which brings me to my last point: this film was meant to have a satyric tone. A lot of it was played for a decidedly Pythonesque Black humour. Fairy tale characters that showed up were MEANT to be twisted and out of focus. I can understand how that might have gone over people's heads, but not if you're a true movie lover.

Wanna bag on something? Watch "Van Helsing".

[–] Michael_Galiatsos 17 years ago

This was one of the worst movies i have ever seen.

Loss of time and money.

[–] nicknotused 17 years ago

Van Helsing was a work of art compared to this pile of elephant dung.

[–] wdwebdev 17 years ago

The explanation by jsblakemore is the best yet.

People need to realize that this was MEANT to be campy (campy, meaning 'over the top and a little cheesy')

If you're looking for Oscar worthy performances, uhm...of course you're not finding them here. But not every movie is made with 'awards' in mind. If you're looking for blood, gore and horror, you won't find it either.

I find it odd that if someone doesn't like something, it's just 'utter crap'. There seems to be no in-between with many of the people here on the silly message boards.

Terry Gilliam, as a former Monty Python, shouldn't be taken too seriously. He even laughs about the fact that it's set in Germany, with an American and an Aussie using English accents. It's MEANT to be silly!

On the other hand, my only big complaint was that the plot from character to character was very confusing. I didn't get that Peter S. was supposed to be the best torturer until I watched the extra features.

[–] sushifreak-1 17 years ago

Thank you JSBlakemore. Your three points nicely capture what needs to be understood to appreciate this, a very underappreciated film. I had feared watching The Brothers Grimm because I love the rest of Gilliam's films and had heard so much negative about it; I was wrong to have waited. It isn't quite up to his best work, but it's a clever, witty film that plays with the juncture between reality and fantasy in much the same way The Adventures of Baron Munchhausen did. Sad so many are unable or unwilling to appreciate it. And total agreement on Van Helsing, though it did have some nice special effects...

[–] Father_Anthonis 17 years ago

lol Just "Watched" it on encore and MAN worse then I EVER thought it could be. Didn't even atch teh last 45 mins.

1 out of 10.

Eye - Warship - Satin

[–] tmann21 16 years ago

I was looking forward watching this film, but watching it was very hard.
it was boring and the cgi looked like it was done 10 years ago.
i am very, very glad i did not watch it in cinema, but on tv instead.
well, if wouldn't have been checking my e-mails and surfing the internet watching the movie would have been 4 lost hours, well, at least it felt like 4 hours...
if someone thinks no wonder "i didn't get it" because i was doing other stuff, this person would be wrong.
the movie was soo slow and, well, actually i don't even bother do think back what else sucked, because most of it has already been stated.

[–] dws100 17 years ago

This movie was really bad.

I mean, the feel that I got watching it is that it was a kind of ironic view on fantasy movies. I mean, everything is just so stupid. The characters, specially. The only good character is Angelika, all the other ones are extremely shallow, stupid, and with very bad actors/acting.

That italian/french soldier/torturer, that was one bad acting. The general is stupid. The two brothers are stupid. Belucci acting was too extreme to feel good.

All in all, bad movie, who could be good, but failed to keep a steady story and good acting. THey all act like they are on LSD.

[–] McThew 17 years ago

I love Gilliam's films.

But this was terrible. Bought it on DVD and flung it in the bin after one viewing. Waste of money. Waste of time.

[–] I_Shall_Return 17 years ago

I thought the movie was OK. I will agree that the acting was WAY over the top and unrealistic, and their wasn't enough action to satisfy my tastes (I...need...BLOOD!). I think the fairy tale elements were creative, and the story was intesting for the most part (though bogged down with nonsence at times), but the actors have near zero depth and do not deliever a good enough performance in my opinion. Like someone above said "It seems like everyone is on LSD" which is the exact feeling I got. I would give it a 6/10 on a good day, and 3/10 on a bad one.

Pluto was rejected as it was too far out there. Years later, it will become the Death Star.

[–] hkhan-2 17 years ago

I also like anreg thought this were a really good film

[–] kenny_flowright 17 years ago

I think this movie was really good.I didn't think the acting was bad at all.Cavaldi was sweet,I thought his accent was good.I can't believe you people don't like this movie!

[–] justsmartenough 17 years ago

It's funny how people that don't like the movie, somehow end up wasting their time coming to a message board about the movie and writing how much they hate it.
That's like a homophobe going to a gay bar sitting down getting a drink and start complaining about gay people. Makes sense...

[–] joolztoolz 17 years ago

I'm laughing right now...'cause I've tried to watch this film twice and got about 45 minutes into it until it became unwatchable for me. Just for the heck of it, I decided a few minutes ago to log in and check out for the first time what people had to say about the film...you know, like, maybe I'm missing somethin' and I should check out what people have to say about it overall...

...so thanks for the laugh everybody!

[–] garymdupre 17 years ago

I love Gilliam's films. I love his animation, I love his writing...

...except this...and I'm just writing how I feel, so coming here makes sense...it's like a purge.

I thought it was kind of goofy-either it was really freaky or very funny...but kind of...awkward in how it was presented. Like, all the stuff was there for a great movie, and it just didn't work.

I don't know. It was just awkward watching it, for me.

[–] nievedeplata 17 years ago

I also thought this movie would be SO cool and was severely disappointed! Wow. It was just... bad, really nasty.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]