Subj : Re: The Brothers Grimm To : alt.tv.farscape From : RR Date : Sun Aug 28 2005 21:56:32 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape John Iwaniszek wrote: >> Unfortunately, a bit of a letdown, esp since Gilliam hasn't done a >> film since "Fear and Loathing" in '98. >> >> As with so many Terry Gilliam films, this one had the standard >> "producers fucking with it behind the scenes". Somehow this has never >> had much of an effect on his finished products; this time, maybe it >> did. >> >> It is not a wholly terrible film by any strtech - even a bad Gilliam >> movie is probably better than most others, but being a Gilliam film, >> the bar has been set pretty high. >> >> The real problem with it is the script (Gilliam had nothing to do >> with the writing), which seems to work on a level that's far below >> the director's crazed imagination. The outlandish imagery doesn't >> match the pedestrian storyline. The film didn't really work for me >> at all until nearly an hour in - at that point I somehow managed to >> start caring about the characters and sorta got into the story. >> >> Both Damon and Ledger give good performances given what little they >> have to work with. Peter Stormare tries often to chew scenery; >> sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. Jonathan Pryce is the >> only actor who seems at home in this world and I'm sure that's due >> entirely to having worked with Gilliam in the past. >> >> Status: Unless you are a total Gilliam nut, it's probably best to >> wait for DVD - although I hope I have a higher opinion of the piece >> after another viewing or two on DVD. >> > > Reviews are mixed, your general opinion seems to be the consensus, but > most reviewers lay the blame at the feet of Weinstein and his > interference with Gilliam and a lack of trust in Gilliam's vision. I > urge you to read Godfrey Chesire's reviw, where he draws a comparison > between Gilliam and Welles: > > > http://indyweek.com/durham/current/movie.html (Um, this is long.) I look forward to finding out more about "The Battle for 'The Brothers'" further on down the road. Gilliam's never one to shy away from ranting his version of events when the time is right (I think he's learned that that time is NOT when the film is in release). If you're at all interested in such things, pick up a copy of the book "Gilliam on Gilliam", which is a series of one on one interviews about each of his films up through "Fear and Loathing". It's a fantastic read, but I am admittedly biased. Gilliam has long been my favorite living director (well, since Kubrick died), and it's always huge amounts of fun to listen to him discuss/read his thoughts on the filmmaking process. Gilliam himself is a piece of animation, even on the printed page. One of the best director commentaries ever is his on the Criterion laserdisc of "The Fisher King" and it's a shame that version has yet to be put out on DVD. Back to TBG - many have commented on the clash over the lead actress; Lena Headey has almost zero personality in the film and it's impossible to figure out why the Brothers compete for her affections, unless one rationalizes that it is because she is the only attainable female in the film that is even remotely easy on the eyes. However I can't speculate that the film would have been better with Samantha Morton; the script's problems are far bigger than just a weakly-scripted love triangle. What's far more noteworthy - that nobody seems to be discussing - is that Weinstein (per IMDB) personally fired Gilliam's cinematographer Nicola Pecorini. Pecorini shot "Fear and Loathing" and since the firing has shot "Tideland" for him as well. A lead actress is one thing, but to fire the hand-picked DP of a Terry Gilliam film!?!?!? Weinstein should have chopped off Gilliam's legs while he was at it. I suspect the real "problem" behind the scenes of TBG is simply that Gilliam really needed to make another film. After the "Quixote" debacle and then his inability to get "Good Omens" off the ground, he just had to do *something*. And the script probably landed on his desk and the studios offered a paycheck and he was likely going out of his mind after years of various setbacks. I'm sure he felt he could bring something to the material and it was just there and available to do; it's unfortunate he didn't or wasn't allowed to do any script revisions. Once the process was engaged, I have a feeling his heart was just not in it. But lucky for the Gilliam-faithful, "Tideland" has not only finished production, but is right around the corner. It's a smaller film and independently produced. I'm suspect it will be a wonderful return to form *and* it's got Jeff Bridges. I've been aching for the two to reteam since "The Fisher King". http://www.tidelandthemovie.com/ http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/tidefact.htm > In typical Cheshire fashion, however, he makes a transition mid review > and praises Jim Jarmusch's latest (while slamming JJ's post "Strangers > in Paradise" work. Note to Godfrey: 'Dead Man', 'Mystery Train', and > 'Down by Law' ROCK. And there is no Law of Art that says a boy from > Ohio has to do only films about people cutting grass, as fascinating > and sexy as that may be.) While Jarmusch is not always my cup of tea (I've yet to see "Broken Flowers", but I want to), "Dead Man" is an incredible piece of work, and if he'd never even done any other film, I'd have huge respect for him on the basis of that film alone. "Mystery Train", I have to admit, I was never able to get all the way through and "Down by Law" I've just never seen. -- RR "It's been my experience that every time I think I know 'where it's at,' it's really somewhere else." - William Holden - S.O.B. .