The Brothers Grimm
Originally Written: August 2005
Knowing all I do about the pain and battles endured by visionary filmmaker Terry Gilliam in bringing this quirky-cool adventure to the big screen (most of it involving battles with Dimension Films head Bob Weinstein), and the fact that it’s been laying in wait for a release forever (it was originally slated for last November), I guess good is the best we could have hoped for from the ambitious director of “12 Monkeys,” “Brazil,” and “The Fisher King.” That’s really quite a terrible thing to say about a filmmaker capable of imaginative greatness (“12 Monkeys”) even if his ambitions lead to very real cinematic disasters (his aborted film “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” with Johnny Depp lead to the fascinating documentary “Lost in La Mancha”), but as “La Mancha” shows, sometimes that’s how the cards have fallen for Gilliam.
That said, if there’s one thing that “The Brothers Grimm” proves about Gilliam, it’s that Warner Bros. screwed up big time not handing the man the reigns to “Harry Potter” when they had the chance (he was J.K. Rowling’s top choice). I love Chris Columbus’ “Potter” films, but this film shows us what might have been had Gilliam gotten his budget, Steve Kloves’ script, and that cast in his mitts (Alfonso Cauron’s “Prisoner of Azkaban” last year made for a good glimpse at what Gilliam might have done, and if all is right with the movie world- which hey, it isn’t- we might get to see if Warner Bros. were to hand Gilliam either film six or seven if the series).
Actually, there are a couple more things it proves about Gilliam besides his status as a perfect “Potter” director. “Grimm” proves that Terry is a) one of the most imaginative visual directors in American cinema (if it wasn’t already obvious from his previous films), b) one the great, underrated comedic minds in American cinema (he was the lone American in the trailblazing Monty Python, and the scene that sticks out most from “La Mancha” is a screen test of giants for his failed film), and c) a storyteller with tremendous passion and energy whose finished films usually begin to fall apart just as they should be getting going.
The last one leads me- finally- to “Grimm.” Not including his work with Python, I’ve seen five Terry Gilliam films. I will see them all at some point. I’m still dying to see him and Depp get “Don Quixote” made, and will eagerly await his next film, the already completed “Tideland” with Jeff Bridges. And with the exception of one (1998’s embarrasing “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” which had a little too much of an excess in lunacy to be satisfying to me), I’ve liked them all (“12 Monkeys” is one of the greatest I’ve ever seen). Gilliam is one of the singular creative minds in American cinema (his films all seem more like European art films that Hollywood productions). But when it comes to telling his stories, he lacks finesse. Perhaps as a result of all his battles with Hollywood, he’s become defensive about preserving his vision of each film (he had final cut- with caveates- on “Monkeys”), probably to a fault. Again, most of his movies are fundamentally good and entertaining as Hell, and God bless him for sticking to his guns. If only more directors would.
The problem comes when his movies have good stories with solid openings and closings to them, but things hit a lull in the middle just when it should be speeding up. I don’t think I’ve seen a movie of his save for the Python pics that were under two hours, and for a filmmaker who obviously gets comedy from the inside out, he seems to forget in his solo films that pacing and timing are essential to making comedy work. The same goes for drama, although instead of laughs, you’re building a sense of excitement. That know-how is lacking in the otherwise enjoyable “Grimm,” as Gilliam is working from a script by hot genre writer Ehren Kruger (“The Ring,” “The Skeleton Key”)- which clearly hasn’t met a cliche it didn’t like- that tells the fictional tale of how brothers Jake (Heath Ledger) and Will (Matt Damon) Grimm were not just writers but also con men who would exploit towns’ dark fables and pretend- with help- to rid them of these spirits for a price. But when they come face-to-face with real dark forces at a town where 10 girls have been taken by an ever-living- but not ever-beautiful- queen (“The Passion of the Christ’s” Monica Bellucci), Jake and Will are forced to face what Jake has been searching for his entire life- real magic- and what Will has never accepted to be real. The film has all the makings of a great Gilliam entertainment until you realize in the film’s midsection that Kruger hasn’t planted the emotional seeds between the brothers deep enough- not to mention the potential for love in the toughly vulnerable townswoman (Lena Headey’s Angelika, too underwritten for Headey- forced upon Gilliam after the Weinstein’s shot down original choice Samantha Morton- to really do anything substantial with)- to sustain the film’s 130 minute length and Gilliam- always stronger with visuals than emotions (though “Monkeys” is good evidence to the contrary)- hasn’t done anything to try and beef it up.
Not that that’s a problem per se for Gilliam fans, who go more for his remarkable visual and tonal imagination than for thoughtful storytelling savvy (though when the two collide, it is a sight to behold). In both vision and tone, “Grimm”- which is anchored by game lead performances by Damon and Ledger (both enjoying Gilliam’s singular silliness)- represents Gilliam in crazy, bat-shit Monty Python mode, with droll humor (a spitting scene stands out here), low-tech visual craziness (the effects sometimes look much cheaper than they were, though it kind of works in the film’s favor), fittingly over-the-top music (by Dario Marianelli), and supporting characters with outrageous accents (“Brazil’s” Jonathan Pryce and “Fargo’s” Peter Stormare ham it up hilariously). It’s a lot like what Johnny Depp brought to “Pirates of the Caribbean,” but unlike Gilliam (whose film IS a production design highpoint for this year), Depp had some help in deliver high-camp on that film’s high seas because everything else around him was played straight and planned to the T. There are times when “Grimm” just seems lost. Still, few filmmakers fly off the handle better than Gilliam, and I’ll take the inspired lunacy of a problematic film like “Grimm” over the play-it-safe formula of a “Fantastic Four” anyday. “Grimm” isn’t great filmmaking, but it’s good fodder for the end-of-summer.
