FILMBRATS - REVIEWS

Brothers Jake and Will go from town to town vanquishing various spirits and monsters. They’re regular “Van Helsing”s. In exchange, they are made the toast of the town and are handsomely rewarded. But it’s a con. They use props, special effects and hired hands to fake a problem that they can fix. Well, soon their reputation catches up to them and they are faced with what is either the best con they’ve ever seen (and didn’t produce) or an actual living breathing fairy tale. Either way, it’s threatening everything they live for, as well as their lives.

The first thought walking out of the theater was “I just wasted two hours of my life.” That was followed by dumbfounded attempts to understand what would make anyone think that this movie was worthy of release. To claim that the movie is bad would be a gross understatement. For me, this goes into the annals of the worst of all time along with the likes of “Freddy Got Fingered,” “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” and “Mission to Mars.” And the worst part is, I can’t really find the words to describe why.

A huge part of it is that director Terry Gilliam has such a great, artistic reputation that precedes him. His work has been a bastion for many film lovers that yearn for originality, creativity, style and wonder – you know, the stuff movies are supposed to be made of. And to think that he would allow something so frightfully pathetic is mind-boggling. Ehren Kruger’s script is wretched, full of plot holes and nonsensical scenarios and situations. They try to pump it full of fairy tale references, but it feels less like “Shrek” and more like they’re trying to be cute and clever on a different level. It fails. Don’t even get me started on the gingerbread man (who’s made of mud, for crying out loud!).

So, the dialogue is lame, trite, and boring. The acting is equally third-rate. I cringed every time Jonathon Pryce opened his mouth and spoke it that terrible stereotypical French accent. I don’t think Matt Damon or What’s His Face…Australian Guy…Heath Ledger even attempted to involve themselves with their characters. It all seemed phoned in.

Part of the problem is that it looks like they were all relying on the visuals. Here, the movie is typical Gilliam. That means it’s stunning, uses a wide variety of lenses, tons of camera movement and eye candy is sprawled as far as the screen allows. But this isn’t a sorority. A film can’t get by on looks alone.

It’s truly hard to put into words the level of disappointment I felt coming out of that movie. It makes me mad just to think about what the movie could have been and how it turned out. Gilliam’s work has consistently been against the grain, yet accessible. They are quirky, fun adventures that get you excited about movies and reaffirm what you love about the cinema. And then this comes along. It’s only one film, and his next may be just as good as his other instant classics. However, I truly feel that this single piece of filth will alienate a lot of his fans. Be careful Terry.

respond to jon@filmbrats.com