Gilliam does Grimm! (1 Viewer)

[Rex Bachmann]

tiny few[/I]]Quote:

Let's put it this way. I have far less invested in tearing Terry Gilliam down than some (most?) of those who've commented here seem to have in building 'im up. I don't think he's a terrible writer-producer-director at all. On balance, I just find his stuff both repetitive and not to my taste: the whimsy, the picaresque, the jolting incongruities, etc.
And, as I commented above, I will be perfectly "okay" with his doing a fictionalized biography of the Brothers Grimm themselves. Since many---too many---of the "biographies" of the (in)famous done for major mainstream Hollywood films are distorted trash anyway, his efforts wouldn't be out of sync with those of his peers, and I personally wouldn't be interested in such a picture in any event. If the picture were to try to be a filmization of the actual folktales, that I would have a problem with, as I stated before. I don't think Mr. Gilliam's the right one for that job, and I'll stand by that claim. Despite what he may have done lately, I don't see anywhere for him to go with such material except back to the good---or bad, depending on one's point of view---old days (and old ways).
Of course, it remains to be seen whether the project will even come about, let alone be completed. If it does, the results will (hopefully) speak for themselves and be judged on their merits. I've always found it better to be pleasantly surprised than abjectly disappointed.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Hi everybody,

Has there been any news on this project? What is Mr. Gilliam up to these days? Eagerly awaiting any news.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

Just on the subject of the Grimms brothers' tales. While I agree that the majority of people have never read the original, un-"Bowdlerized" versions, it's not because they are hard to find, it's because they are ignorant that such versions exist. You can walk into any bookstore and buy them, it's just not something most people think of. The Disney, PC versions are just more visible.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I'm looking forward to this.

The older MGM-Cinerama movie just had the great production design, cinematography, George Pal animation, and Terry-Thomas going for it.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Todd Terwilliger wrote (post #23):

(emphasis added)

Precisely the point. And I suspect that's exactly what the mass audiences any studio will want to draw into the theaters will be expecting (forewarnings notwithstanding): something "the people" already know (as usual), not something they don't know.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Gilliam will do great, sounds like a lot of fun

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

Rex,
My hope is that Gilliam has the independence and pull to stick with the original stories. Judging by his work from Monty Python to Time Bandits, Brazil, etc., I think he can do it. I doubt a studio would bring Gilliam in if they didn't want something different less ordinary.

 

[Jon Sheedy]

Anyway, unless we're all forgetting some other director who would do a better job with this project (if you're thinking of one please remind us), I also say, Terry Gilliam + Grimm = Perfect Match.
JOn

 

[SteveGon]

This new project sounds good - I hope they let Gilliam get behind the camera...

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

Anyone who thinks Gilliam cannot handle the dark, cautionary aspects of the original Grimm fairy tales should watch the last two minutes of Time Bandits.
And if you're still not convinced... feh!

 

[Rex Bachmann]

John Sheedy wrote (post #28):

Quote:

My sentiments exactly. (In other words, I'd quit while I was ahead, if I were you.)

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Rex, you still haven't explained how Brazil and 12 Monkeys are Monty-Pythonesque, jokey films.

 

[Vic_T]

I had heard that Terry had started work on a film version of Good Omens (funny book). I supposse this means that Good Omens fell through? I love Gilliam; he does seem to have trouble getting his films made, though.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Dan Rudolph wrote (post #32):

It's been a long time since last I saw it, but, as I remember it, most of Brazil is joky, save for the torture scenes (especially the ending) and the fantasy warrior scenes, which, of course, end up tying in together. The whole retro-future bit---with all the anachronistic "labor-saving" gadgets---strikes me as one long joke, if you ask me; one that goes on far past its usefulness.
The protagonist talks to his mother as she has her face stretched; literal "plastic surgery". [hardy har-har]
The whimsical popping-in and -out of the terrorist, played by Robert DeNiro. Yes, I know it plays in to the end, but the sensibilities of it are so much at odds with the tone of later ("dark") developments that it produces more than a bit of discrepancy ("disconnect") for me.
Much of this kind of thing worked for Brazil; still, I found the denouement jarringly incongruous to most of the movie. Apogogic story-telling---plotting by misdirection---has something to be said for it, I guess, but it requires a delicate tightrope-walk that can easily fail, and often disappoints, even when it doesn't quite fail.
My objection to 12 Monkeys has less to do with "jokiness" than with utter predictability. I'm sorry, but the time-paradox of traveller to the past creating or causing the situation he is sent to connoitre and prevent is by now a hoary sf standard, almost(?) a cliché. How did I know that the frequent flash to the man in the blond wig would feature a character so very close to the protagonist in the rest of the film and, besides, be the key to the coming disaster? Arguments about "jokiness" aside, I just didn't like this one too well at all on its own merits.
Need I say that the British humor of some of his other, earlier films, which are quite episodic and picaresque (and thus betray their televisual sensibilities), does little or nothing for me from the get-go?

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Vic_T wrote (post #33):
[QUOTE=

 

[Dan Rudolph]

My objection to 12 Monkeys has less to do with "jokiness" than with utter predictability. I'm sorry, but the time-paradox of traveller to the past creating or causing the situation he is sent to connoitre and prevent is by now a hoary sf standard, almost(?) a cliché. How did I know that the frequent flash to the man in the blond wig would feature a character so very close to the protagonist in the rest of the film and, besides, be the key to the coming disaster? Arguments about "jokiness" aside, I just didn't like this one too well at all on its own merits.

While the basic idea is n't new, this kind of fatalism is very rare in movies. The fact we could all see his fate coming, but he couldn't is largely the idea of the movie.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Some casting news courtesy of www.thehollywoodreporter.com :

 

[Rex Bachmann]

SciFiWire: "Gilliam Moves To Grimm "
dateline: April 17, 2003, 9:00 a.m. ET

 

[Rex Bachmann]

SciFi Wire: "Bellucci Reloads Grimm"http://scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2003-09/26/10.00.film
dateline: September 26, 2003 9:00 a.m. ET

 

[Paul_Sjordal]

I guess you could call me a sort-of Gilliam fan.
I loved Brazil, but I loved it because I found it cute and quirky. The sad ending doesn't make it a dark movie, it just proves that Gilliam is willing to buck Hollywood clichés (and he had to fight a court battle to do it).
Jabberwocky really annoyed me. Enough that I won't bother watching it again (and I couldn't watch the whole thing the first time).
Time Bandits and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen were childish and over the top and that's why I liked 'em.
I have mixed feelings about 12 Monkeys and Fisher King. As movies in their own right I sorta liked them, but as Gilliam films they left me flat. They were both too… commercialized and Hollywood-ized to feel like real Gilliam films to me.
I haven't watched Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and don't feel any particular urge to run out and rent it.
Having said all of that, I would very much look forward to the Grimm movie as described. Look at the description again, folks, this isn't going to be a faithful re-creation of the Brothers Grimm fairy tales.

"…the brothers while traveling from village to village pretending to protect townsfolk from enchanted creatures…"
"Eventually, the duo run into a powerful sorceress who seeks to put their words to the test."

How can this movie be anything other than whimsical? If it were serious, we would either have straight interperetations of the original stories, or the "real-life" story of the brothers wouldn't involve a real-life sorceress.
Given Rex's background and proclivities, I can't see how he would possibly like this movie. I on the other hand will probably enjoy it. "Dark whimsy" is exactly what I like about Gilliam (and what annoys his detractors). Another thing that annoys his detractors is that he's as subtle as a freight train, while I find that aspect of his filmmaking highly amusing.
Oh and Rex? Be glad this isn't a straight interperetation of the Grimm stories. If anyone made such a movie, you'd complain as bitterly as any Tolkien fan, and don't try to deny it. There's nothing wrong with being a fanatical devotee of a book. Most of us around here are giulty of that for at least one book or movie.