# "The Brothers Grimm"



## Non Compos Mentis (Apr 14, 2004)

This movie looks like it may be promising. It opens Aug. 26.


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

It does look pretty good, but I'm a little worried about it because it's one of those movies I've been hearing about for a long time now, and that usually means disaster.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

I'm not crazy about Matt Damon. Those big dramatic actors _rarely_ ever really appreciate darkness.


----------



## Lilith (Apr 13, 2004)

I want to see it. I am a big fan of fairy tale fantasy and I adore the Brothers Grim. Plus the director is one of the best directors out there. It maybe good.


----------



## SuFiKitten77 (Jul 19, 2005)

_I have seen the previews, and watched the trailor .. looks worth checking out to me  Looking forward to seeing it, also looking forward to seeing SAW 2 _


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

After seeing the TV previews, I'm as usual not very interested in seeing a new movie. Already too much CGI for my taste.


----------



## Lilith (Apr 13, 2004)

Doctorthingit said:


> After seeing the TV previews, I'm as usual not very interested in seeing a new movie. Already too much CGI for my taste.


Whats wrong with CGI? I adore CGI. I am or was an animation student. I think it is amazing what they can do with a computer. But then again I have seen shows were CGI was thought to be used but actually wasn't. Some films like to trick the aduence. But still CGI is the new step in set design. New things happen and take over and eventually in a few years from know people will not care if something is CGI or not.


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

Lilith said:


> Whats wrong with CGI?
> 
> ...in a few years from know people will not care if something is CGI or not.


CGI isn't terrible in and of itself, it's just that too many movies rely heavily on it and do nothing about filling plot holes, having a good cast with a good script, and making it look nothing more than a sophisticated (In some cases, not in all) cartoon, when everything else is based at least on reality in the rest of the frames. That is the main problem with CGI: Studios throw it up on the screen when everything else is ravelling away faster than a cheap sweater from the Salvation Army.

Don't delude yourself for a second Nicole that people won't care in a few years whether something is CGI or not. Try posting that on some of the more militant movie forums around the 'Net and see what you get. I'm promise you child, it won't be pretty.


----------



## Lilith (Apr 13, 2004)

Yes true but new things been coming along faster then anything else. I am sure in 20 years CGI will be used more often and most people will get use to the fact that it will be common in films. Almost all films use CGI. Good films use it but are less visible and suttle because it is not needed as much. Though sometimes it does take away from the plott but I have seen plott wholes on good films before that are bigger then films that did not do so hot. I guess it really depends on how good everything else is. I think CGI is pretty good recently and how they do it is really interesting.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

What's wrong with CGI? Um... hm... let me think about this one. How about- it replaces technical ingenuity, hinders mechanical effects artists, and is NEVER used sparingly anymore. It's in every frickin' thing. Even goddamn family films like Winn Dixie and Meet the Fockers. A dog can't smile, so they FAKE one with CGI, and it's the most obvious and painful thing to see ****head movie watchers just eat up with a spoon. How about, it's not real, and it makes every movie that uses it look exactly the same. It makes every film that comes out today bland. And like Sinister said, in the damn truckloads that it's used in today, it takes over the plot and story. What the hell- is every movie supposed to be a cartoon now?! We as adults, really have to be more intelligent than children when it comes to digesting films. I've always felt that way and always will. CGI is taking over everything and it's not cool. Everything is fake, everything is artificial now. It insults my intelligence.


----------



## Non Compos Mentis (Apr 14, 2004)

That's "Hollywood" for you. They just go along with the trends or whatever makes money.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

I know and it really bugs me too. With CGI, it's like the only person who needs to be artistic is the person at the computer who looks at a few sketches. It's such an amazing killer of anything artistic. And detail with CGI is just not effective unless it's hidden, which is the only way it can really be accepted. And the kind of movies that would use it, lack serious personality. The whole project, each, suffers because of it.


----------



## Lilith (Apr 13, 2004)

Well it is art in my opinion. If you look into how they make a film the way it is you will see that everything they do is artificial even from the begining. Film has never been about reality even if it is based on real things like Meet the Fokers. If you watch Interview with the Vampire much of it was mechanical and CGI but not as noticable because it was not a film noted for it. Cartoons are not always about childish things. There is art in animation and adult themes in animation. If people are going to attack animation because of what society as cartoon is wrong. Animation in general is not all childish stuff. Films been using diffrent forms of animation in films for a long time know. CGI is just another step of direction film goers are doing. It is not about a fad as much as it is away of getting a story across. If you look at some films like Labyrinth they used a form of art using puppets in a more extreme way. It was a popular thing to do at the time because of Jim Henson and many others before and after. It is still being used in many films but not as common because it is not needed. In the new DOOM film that will be out I think next year most of it will be puppets and other things besides CGI. But if you take a look at movies like The Lord of Rings Trilogy and Harry Potter it was creative. I do consider animation to be an art and consider CGI to be the next step in awsome artwork and effects. The future holds diffrent styles and don't expect it to be all the same from the past. You just have to take it for what it is not for what its not.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

I guess you really do like it. I hate it, I really _really_ hate it. To the point where, if God were to appear right next to me and say the only to save film now is to destroy all CGI, even erase everything CGI from the past and the choice was up to me... I would do it. Though I would ask for the personal ability to be able to incinerate all copies of each atrocity to film right in front of each of the filmmakers' eyes in a nightmare they would quickly wake to realize is not a dream at all. I want them to see how much their "work" has hurt others and made audience's suffer.


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

Wow! You really do hate it.

CGI is certainly an art form - no question, but too much dependency on it can ruin a film!


----------



## Lilith (Apr 13, 2004)

If there is no plot to the film and only CGI then I will be pissed. But what can you do? If they going to create a film were their are dragons flying what better then CGI. What do expect? I mean it takes a hell of a lot of work to do CGI as it is to do anything. Trust me on that. I have been involved with CGI work and many of the teachers I have talked worked on films with CGI. They bascly stated that almost all films use it but it depends on the reason for it. It goes through a lot of drawing and traditional animation work before hitting the computer. CGI is the new edge of designing but it will never take away from designing sets without CGI. Designing sets will always be up there and so will new ideas without CGI will be in effect. I have studied film and animation. Though I didn't do so hot because the school wasn't that great I did learn a great deal in design and what they do and do not CGI and you will be shocked the amount that isn't CGI effects. Take The Lord of the Rings for example Gollum was only CGI based on the actor's expressions. All the artist did was render him into Gollum. That is limited CGI. Bascly it is what they call rodo scooping (sp?). It is nothing new in film. It has been used since the dawning of animation used in films. It is art regardless of what you think whether you hate it or like it. Without the advance of techonology in animation a lot of things that were benefit besides making film will never exist. You will be amazed what CGI has down with police inforcment, military, medicine ect... It is not just for films.


----------



## ScareFX (Aug 18, 2004)

Looks like it might be disappointing... I was planning to see it... Maybe not now.

39% so far on http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/brothers_grimm/


----------



## Lilith (Apr 13, 2004)

Maybe not to me. I don't always agree with people that review films anyway.


----------



## ScareFX (Aug 18, 2004)

Lilith said:


> Maybe not to me. I don't always agree with people that review films anyway.


You're right Lilith. That's true in my case many times as well. I might still give it a go. I've enjoyed plenty of stuff the critics called crap. I was just hoping for more positive reviews. Hate to waste $40+ for my family of five to see it on the big screen if it's really only a rental quality flick.


----------



## Lilith (Apr 13, 2004)

ScareFX said:


> You're right Lilith. That's true in my case many times as well. I might still give it a go. I've enjoyed plenty of stuff the critics called crap. I was just hoping for more positive reviews. Hate to waste $40+ for my family of five to see it on the big screen if it's really only a rental quality flick.


I am going on Sunday. I liked Van Helsing a lot. Most people hated it but I enjoyed it. I enjoy films that most people consider "crap".


----------



## ScareFX (Aug 18, 2004)

I look forward to your review


----------

