User Reviews

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

In 1811, in a French occupied Germany, the crooks Brothers Grimm pretend to fight against evil witches and monsters to make money. However, they are arrested by Cavaldi (Peter Stormare) and General Delatombe (Jonathan Pryce), but they have a chance to redeem themselves in the village of Marbaden, where ten young girls have vanished. Will (Matt Damon) and Jacob (Heath Ledger) are guided by the local Angelika (Lena Headey) through an enchanted forest where they face the evil Mirror Queen (Monica Bellucci) that depends on the sacrifice of twelve girls in the eclipse to stay beautiful and young.

"The Brothers Grimm" is an underrated dark fable, homage to the authors of a great number of fairy tales, the Brothers Grimm. The first point that calls the attention of this make-believe story is the magnificent cinematography and special effects. The story is original, funny and full of action, but not recommended for children, since it is too dark and Gothic. The personalities of Will and Jacob are not well-defined, since they begin the story as despicable con-men and end like heroes. The screenplay could have developed them further. Lena Headey and Monica Bellucci are extremely beautiful, as usual, and they have good performances. I am a fan of Terry Gilliam and in my opinion the evaluation of his direction in this movie is unfair in many reviews. The high-quality and wonderful pack of the Brazilian DVD released by Europa Distributor deserves a note in my review, being one of the most beautiful I have ever seen. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Os Irmãos Grimm" ("The Grimm Brothers")

I have to begin this review by letting you know right off that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I haven't adored everything Terry Gilliam has done, but I don't hate his style, either. Rather, I judge each movie by its own merits.

This work is adventurous, exciting, and story-driven. Most would probably consider this work action-driven, but I find there IS a good solid story behind the action. It has moments of suspense, breath-taking imagery, and stylized humor. It is a great movie.

A great movie, which has obvious flaws.

Regardless of how much I enjoyed this movie, there was one element which nagged at me the whole time I was viewing this work. Mind you, I have not seen this on DVD, so I am unaware if they have created the DVD "fix" for this yet, or not. I could not help but notice, in several places, the editing seemed stiff.

I am fervently hoping that this came from a paring down of those scenes. If such is the case, then I am also (just as fervently) hoping they give us (the US & Canada) a Region 1, 2-disk Director's Cut with those scenes edited BACK IN! I hate it when they include the deleted scenes outside the movie. Put those back where they belong!

On the flip side...

With the release of Underworld in 2003, the sub-sub-genre of Action/Horror has taken a turn at the box office. Just as, "The Worst Witch," revived the interest in Magick and fantasy, and generated an audience for the later, "Harry Potter," series, so did, "Underworld," revive the Horror genre and the appreciation for the blending of Horror and Action.

This work, "The Brothers Grimm," as an Action/Horror, does not foot the bill. There is too little Horror and the action is sometimes a bit subdued. There are places where CGI and/or choreography is obvious thereby breaking the Spell so competently woven by the story and virtue of the characters. However, it IS too dark for the kiddies, and still quite enjoyable.

I was not disappointed, but I was not elated over the final product, either. Here's hoping for a GOOD "fix" (and a timely release) of the 2-disk Region 1 Director's Cut DVD release.

It rates an 8.6/10 from...

the Fiend :.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's 1811 in French occupied Germany. Will (Matt Damon) and Jacob Grimm (Heath Ledger) are two con artists who use mechanics and mirrors to fake supernatural occurrences. They go to fearful villagers, and pretend to rid them of their monsters. General Delatombe (Jonathan Pryce) is about to execute them when they are given the chance to save the village of Marbaden. They would need the help of trapper Angelika (Lena Headey).

Matt Damon plays an annoying arrogant pompous man. Heath Ledger is wrong as the bookish bumbling geek. Neither of them are likable. They are a hard duo to root for. Peter Stormare plays the wacky Frenchman Cavaldi. Lena Headey plays a very hard woman.

It's all ugly. The characters are ugly. The setting is ugly. The arguing is ugly. It has Terry Gilliam's inventive style, but it doesn't have the awesome scale of 'The Adventures of Baron Munchausen'. It definitely doesn't have the fun.

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 ****

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.

It was OK to watch once, but the story is really lacking in any sort of moral lesson and it lacks Terry Gilliam's touch.

The ending is flat, another self sacrifice scene, which does not serve a purpose other than to promote the desire of some studio suit. Action, special effects and big name stars are all that's found in this empty shell of a movie.

I like Terry Gilliam, but this doesn't seem like a Terry Gilliam movie. It lacks his special touches of the surreal which would have really made this a great movie. I can tell that there was some one behind him pulling the strings and forcing him to do things their way rather than the Terry Gilliam way.

Matt Damon and Heath Ledger work well together and I thought they make a good "Brothers Grimm" but again, because the story is flat and boring their talents are lost in a quagmire of stupidity from people who do not know how to make movies.

Studios should level geniuses like Gilliam alone to work their magic. What a shame, such a lost opportunity.

It's Bavaria in the early 19th Century, and Willhelm and Jacob Grimm (Damon and Ledger) are traveling hucksters who trick gullible and superstitious townspeople into paying them to rid their towns of witches. They're making a good amount of money until they happen upon a situation that really does involve magic, something that they're not quite equipped to deal with.

Despite an interesting premise, The Brothers Grimm is a dull and cheesy mess. The worst part about the movie is the script. Ehren Kruger does a horrible job of trying to mix comedy, action and some horror into this fantasy film. The different genres don't fit well together and you're left with a mess. Ehren was just the wrong guy for the job and he should stick with horror films. Terry Gilliam does a decent job behind the camera but he can't save the film. At least the movie looks good though and it has that interesting Gilliam style.

The acting is pretty poor and no one gives a good performance. Matt Damon is a pretty talented actor but he can't save the film. He's clearly a miscast here but he does appear to be having fun and this helps. Heath Ledger plays neurotic poorly and he's also a miscast. Monica Bellucci has a small role and she doesn't really appear until the end. She gives an okay performance, nothing special.

Besides for the two lead characters, the rest of them are all really annoying. I guess they were trying to be funny but it was way over the top and pointless. The dialog is cheesy and most of it is pretty stupid. There were some funny lines but they were few and far in between. There's not a lot of action so don't go in expecting a lot. The running time is about 118 minutes but it feels so much longer. They could have edited a few scenes and a few characters so it wouldn't have been as long or as annoying. I know this is the type of film that's made for fun but I wasn't having any. The movie had a bunch of cool and creative ideas but they didn't mix well together and the film ended up being a big mess. In the end, the Brothers Grimm may be the most disappointing film of 2005 and it's not really worth checking out. Rating 3/10

In Gilliam's Brothers Grimm is a good movie struggling to get out. It never makes it. Although the overall look of the film is consistent, this has the feel of several different movies being strung together. It's not funny, it's not scary, it's not intriguing, it's rarely entertaining and it's full of loose ends. Watching it with my son, six, and daughter, nine — I am 56 — I kept having to ask them what was going. They seemed to know but I was, at times, baffled. We were taken down so many highways and byways which led nowhere that it was more like going on a less than magical mystery tour. Perhaps that's my stupidity. Perhaps not. Matt Damon and Heath Ledger do tolerably well given that both are cast against type, the sets are great, Jonathan Pryce and Peter Stomare simply seem to be content with enjoying themselves and to hell with the audience. There's no coherent plot, the romantic interest is vastly undercooked and the film can't make up its mind what it wants to be. We Watched on DVD and also looked at the special feature on the making off the film. Apart from the usual Hollywood mutual schmoozing about how great it was to work with the other actors (when will someone publicly say "I hated the creep'? Never, of course, or at the very end of a career), I was amazed at the amount of computer-generation this film made use of. To what end, you ask, if the storyline is so hopelessly flimsy? I understand that Gilliam had his usual problems with The Suits, but on this offering, I'm inclined to feel more sympathy for The Suits. The Brothers Grimm is by no means all bad, it just isn't very good, either. There are references to some of the real Grimm fairy tales, but these never make sense, or, at least, internal sense. They are simply tacked on. I feel a jerk for criticizing Gilliam, because Hollywood and the film worked needs some mavericks such as him. But we also need films which we enjoy for themselves, not ones we give a sympathy vote to. I could imagine a Czech or Italian filmmaker making a far better first of this. As I say there is a good film in there somewhere, but you just get bored trying to track it down.