Escape to the Movies: Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

MovieBob gives us his no-holds-barred take on the latest iteration of the Hansel & Gretel story.

Watch Video

From people that think being the first to comment gives them a feeling of self-satisfaction and worth, pity these poor souls:
Great video, as always!

Captcha: it happens

Yes, Bob, but the thing is, we already have the exemplary damnation movie of witch hunts:

Andrew Siribohdi:
Bob, I've been watching your videos a long time but even I'm confused by the link you have between witch hunts and this movie.

I can't say I have an opinion either way. On one hand, the movie could portray the witches as "spies", acting innocent and everything, then turning all witch as if to suggest that their persecution was justified in the first place...

...but on the other hand, it's fiction. Bob might as well be getting butthurt by the Salem Witch enemy in Castlevania: Symphony of the Night.

Bob, I've been watching your videos a long time but even I'm confused by the link you have between witch hunts and this movie.

the director of Dead Snow screwed up an over-the-top joke film? Damn. I really liked Dead Snow too.

You can be damn sure I remember the Brothers Grimm Movie Bob.
I'm pretty sure everyone remembers what the real witch hunts were like Bob, but I don't think anyone really cares in this film's context. I mean, it's not like anyone was going to this movie expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

fucking January. I also wonder if the writer got dumped by a woman in the past and now he's taking it out on the women in this movie

Err Bob, I can assume in the film, that those women revealed to be witched are like the typical portrayal of witches as in having dark spell and using it for evil? There is no innocent women who were wrongly accused, they are just plain old evil witches.

I think you are way over analysing it especially when the film itself is bad (or did you got nothing better to do then to trying to dig deeper when there was nothing to start of with?).

Still from the sound of film, it sound like it's abit sexist (the femal lead get beaten up twice but the male lead doesn't)?

Lastly, oh come on! Abrams isn't like Michal Bay and his version Star Trek was GOOD and an excellent reboot to the franchise (especially when the previous films it feel like you HAD to watches the series first)!! Beside wasn't Bob reviews of it was good?

DVS BSTrD:
...the Spanish Inquisition.

Which was hilarious in this one Mel Brooks movie. ;)

That said...

bring in the nuns!

I couldn't believe the news myself. Regardless of who directs the next star wars movie i'm sure it will be a hit at the box office so why not take on a good director who makes quality films? I understand why people like Abrams but their is no denying that his films are shallow and the lense flairs are annoying.

Good review as usual Bob, i had a feeling that this film would just be ripping off the brothers grim.

Soooo....your saying go see it? Ha ha, sorry, I love modern fantasy movies that don't have a strong romance theme going and this movie seems right up my alley, even more so since I saw your review. I don't imagine the Witch Hunt thing bothering me since really all it is, is a heavily exaggerated retelling of lets be honest, an already quite silly children's fairy tale. And because I can just dismiss the movie as fantasy and really not to be taken seriously, the misogynistic undertones are likely to fly right over my head.

I hadn't even heard of this movie before this review. And the first half of your review comes off as a bit oversensitive to misogyny. Granted, I haven't seen it so it could be as bad as you make it out to be. Though I'll probably give this one a miss anyway.

Oh good. Another fucking Lens flare joke. It is like it was not played out in 2009....
image

I had to turn this off after the first minute, I'm sorry but Jesus Christ I just want a movie review. The knee jerk reaction to J.J. getting Star Wars which I though was totally unfair. You might not like that director but calling him lazy?! Star Trek had it's faults in pacing and structure but it was a pretty well made movie even if bad decisions were made. And Super 8 was a very decent 80's throwback done well, something many people have tried and failed at. This from a guy who seemingly prides himself on being open minded. Then into the whole witch hunt thing. I know you have said there is not a lot to talk about in the movies you don't like so you tend to latch onto one thing that bugs YOU. I have enjoyed Bob's reviews in the past and The Big Picture is usually worth a look but please review a movie for what it is. I know they are subjective to the viewer, but your job is to relate this to us, the viewers who want to know if we should spend money on it. I miss the days when your reviews were 5 minutes of indepth discussion about a movie occasionally bringing up other movies to back up your point. How often do you just run out of time and bring up your opinion on esoteric nerd culture. You should have to be cutting these episodes rather than stretching them. Sorry man but critique is part of what these comments are for and I would rather say it and you will take it on board rather than just stop watching.

so, okish rental?
and while i love most of your stuff bob, please don't add "it will suck because of the director" after every bit of new you comment on regarding the star wars thing. maybe disney hires a burly super hairy Turkish wrestler who tasers him every time he thinks "lens flare". i am confident Disney has at least one guy who can read minds.

When the trailers arrive, I half expected Hansel & Gretel to team up with some good witches to "prove" not all of them were bad. Not that I am disappointed by the lack of the obvious trope, but I guess an obvious one would at least proven that they put a little effort to separate themselves from the simple premise.

Fighting monsters with steampunk weapons is a nice idea, but it was fresh in Van Helsing and Wild Wild West and not even that could save them. At this point, I kind of expect any monster action movie set in previous centuries to have some anachronistic devices just to make them interesting; to the point its almost cliche too.

And Bob, isn't it a little too easy criticism to say a movie about witch hunters is misogynist because the villains are witches? In popular culture, all witches are women... Its like accusing some videogame set on Africa of racism because most villains are black. I guess it hit a nerve with his Bostonian background, but I still think you are reading too much between lines.

I don't mind the choice of JJ for Star Wars. Its the obvious nerd choice outside of Whedon, but I think he can do pretty decent jobs. Sure, Star Trek had little in terms of science fiction, but it was a decent action flick, same as MI3; and I really liked Cloverfield.

I've gotta say, even Abrams is better than latter day Lucas. Would have preferred Guillermo del Toro, but at least it's not Michael Bay(though he would be a perfect fit for a Karen Traviss stormtrooper focused movie).

Oh Wirkola, to go from the awesomeness of "Dead Snow" to...this. :(

Okay...remind me. Who's that guy gonna be directing the new Star Wars? I'm brain farting right now, and can't put a name to that rather geeky looking face with the AAAAAAAAAAAH! THE LENSFLARE! IT BURNS US, MY PRECIOUS!

EDIT: NVM, it's Abrams. THAT explains the lensflare!

OT: I had a feeling this movie wasn't going to be good, or at least be overly cliched. God help us if they decide to turn Goldilocks into an action hero next...

Jas0913:
I couldn't believe the news myself. Regardless of who directs the next star wars movie i'm sure it will be a hit at the box office so why not take on a good director who makes quality films? I understand why people like Abrams but their is no denying that his films are shallow and the lense flairs are annoying.

Good review as usual Bob, i had a feeling that this film would just be ripping off the brothers grim.

The thing is, Star Wars is pretty shallow. There isn't any deeper meaning to any of it, it's a well told story that has good action, well written likable characters and a decent ending. It doesn't have anything to say beyond that.

Abrams is a talented director, he can do an ensemble pretty well and some of his action sequences are actually pretty amazing. It's his troupe of writers who suck, writing terrible movies that he directs. Star Wars won't have this issue as his writing troupe is nowhere to be found. And you better be damn sure that Disney, Lucasarts and the story team at Pixar are not gonna let this go through with a shitty script.

Abrams has a very small chance of screwing this one up, I mean, he's already made a pretty good Star Wars film in 2009.

Reacting to the very opening:

Oh come now, Abram's Star Trek may be kind of vapid, and Super 8 may have had script issues, but it's not like he's put out anything near as bad as the prequels. The fact that Disney's probably going to be very hands on here, and that they've kind of been really on their game lately seems really likely to balance out a lot of Abram's negative qualities. Star Wars is a big enough deal that I have to think that Disney would willing put the whole of Pixar's story team plus Joss Whedon to work on the film if they have to to get it working.

This movie's trailer didn't impress me in the slightest, and this review makes it even more likely that I won't see it so moving on.

On the subject of JJ Abrams directing the new Star Wars though? I don't know. It's too early to say anything but I feel like I should point something out if only for the sake of asking a question. Is it me or does Abrams have a knack for adapting his style of directing to different properties? We all make the lens flare jokes but were they really a big problem in any thing that Abrams has made outside of Star Trek? I ask because I never watched lost or Alias and I've seen neither Cloverfield nor Super 8. Were there lens flares in those as well? I assumed that it was a stylistic choice that he or the production team assumed would fit the film. They were wrong of course but that has always been my take on it. Also, I'm at least glad that Star Wars is in the hands of an industry guy who is a self-professed nerd.

On the whole though, I'm neither excited nor pessimistic about this development. Time will tell either way.

MacNille:
Oh good. Another fucking Lens flare joke. It is like it was not played out in 2009....

I find it to be a fairly interesting just how easily and universally you can settle yourself with a negative stigma like that (and it's a completely justifiable criticism of the 2009 film which did take it to the point of absurdity), I was expecting some people to mention it, but it's amazing just how much that one aspect of a film which did middlingly in terms of critical praise has permeated the consciousness.

Lono Shrugged:
The knee jerk reaction to J.J. getting Star Wars which I though was totally unfair. You might not like that director but calling him lazy?! Star Trek had it's faults in pacing and structure but it was a pretty well made movie even if bad decisions were made.

My instinctive reaction is that JJ Abrams made a very shallow action film out of a franchise that rightly or wrongly praises itself on being intellectual and with that in mind, choosing him to direct the opponent franchise whose main struggle for the past three films has been good effects with weak plotting was an incredibly wrong move. But then, I guess Abrams isn't actually didn't write Star Trek and he's not going to write this one either. And Star Wars is a more suitable place for the over-the-top visuals (I'd say cliche but I'm not sure if it's the director who would be responsible for the death pits and platforms without handrails). So I guess you're right, maybe the backlash is a bit of a knee-jerk thing

I remember Brothers Grimm. I always thought it was a weird movie, i'm a huge fan of Terry Gilliams work but for the most part Brothers Grimm was really uninspired. Usually Gilliams movies are like Tim Burton movies if they were good. But Brothers Grimm was like a Tim Burton movie... period. Like Sleepy Hollow to be precise. Way below Gilliams usual quality.

So, yeah, Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters? Not gonna watch it. That whole "We're making edgy fantasy movies based on fairytales" has gotten really old by now and wasn't exactly interesting to begin with.

I've got to admit a movie that sells witch hunters as the good guys makes me a little squeamish. Historically given all the innocent people brutally killed by witch hunters it has about the same effect as making the Inquisition or the Nazi SS heroes of a film. Some things are just tainted beyond the point of getting redeeming qualities to them.

Doesn't really help that the trailers gave me a feeling of a bad movie loaded with misogyny.

As to Star Wars, well it just makes me feel grateful that Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were left in the hands of someone like Peter Jackson. Perhaps JJ Abrams can surprise me but so far I've just got a bad feeling he's not going to be able to capture that magic of the original series that Star Wars fans long for. Sure it will be a hit because it's got the Star War name on it, but Hollywood lately seems like it's into just cashing in on names instead of making something even better.

sailor_960:
I ask because I never watched lost or Alias and I've seen neither Cloverfield nor Super 8. Were there lens flares in those as well?

Unfortunately it looks like.. yeah.

So fighting witches is misogynist now?

Comparisons to Brothers Grimm lead me to give this one a pass. Brothers Grimm was anti-entertainment. It was so bad that watching it was like eating my own fecal matter.

1. Abrams used too much lens flare ONE TIME and got hammered for it right when the film came out. Remember all the other stuff he's done that didn't have too much lens flare? Cloverfield was great. It's like cutting Al Pacino's nuts off for starring in Cruising.

2. Which came first, actual witch hunts or stories about evil witches? Mhm. And no, I don't care that some people some time used this phrase to kill people who were innocent. If I had that as a qualifier, I wouldn't be able to play the same video games all the school shooters have, would I?

3. Why is it still offensive for a man to punch a villian in the face if she's a woman? If you ask me, it's sexist in its exceptionalism. A man or woman punching a male villian in the face is just a hero punching a villian in the face, but women don't get to be "villians," they have to be "female villains." They're still an exception to the rule, still illegitimate in that role. I say thee nay. Kinda funny that this criticism happens one or two days after the Army starts talking about lifting the ban on women in forward combat positions.

But yeah, any main character getting hurt and nursed back to health twice by two different characters sounds like too much for a 90-minute film.

daibakuha:

Jas0913:
I couldn't believe the news myself. Regardless of who directs the next star wars movie i'm sure it will be a hit at the box office so why not take on a good director who makes quality films? I understand why people like Abrams but their is no denying that his films are shallow and the lense flairs are annoying.

Good review as usual Bob, i had a feeling that this film would just be ripping off the brothers grim.

The thing is, Star Wars is pretty shallow. There isn't any deeper meaning to any of it, it's a well told story that has good action, well written likable characters and a decent ending. It doesn't have anything to say beyond that.

Abrams is a talented director, he can do an ensemble pretty well and some of his action sequences are actually pretty amazing. It's his troupe of writers who suck, writing terrible movies that he directs. Star Wars won't have this issue as his writing troupe is nowhere to be found. And you better be damn sure that Disney, Lucasarts and the story team at Pixar are not gonna let this go through with a shitty script.

Abrams has a very small chance of screwing this one up, I mean, he's already made a pretty good Star Wars film in 2009.

I agree with this sentiment. As long as there's a good writer Abrams should have little trouble being better then the last (first? stupid numbering) three star wars movies (I,II,III).

anthony87:
So fighting witches is misogynist now?

Didn't you know? every part of fiction where someone punch a women in the face is misogynist now! Punching a demon lady in the face as it trying to eat ya? Misogyny. Kill a women in an act of revenge because she killed your family? Misogyny.

edit. And if a women kills a man? It is not misandry. It just show her as a strong independent women.

Oh, did Abrams use a lens flare a few times in Star Trek?
Glad someone pointed that out.

As I've said before I think Abrams is the safest bet Disney could have hoped for. Sure I would have rather seen Snyder or Del Toro get the job because I think they have directorial styles that would have been fun and interesting to see in the Star Wars universe.

Fun and interesting being something that's been sorely lacking from the series for a while now.

Abrams on the other hand has a versatile style that can adapt better to an existing franchise without creating too much stylistic whiplash.

As for the movie on hand.

I'm honestly surprised that there haven't been more parallels to Van Helsing since it seems to me that they were kinda cut from the same "this is stupid but let's do it anyway" cloth.

Bob dislikes a movie AND is getting on his soap box about misogyny that can only be seen by people who are projecting so hard they've got a light shining from their head?

We'll I know what I'm going to see this weekend.

Here's the difference between real witch hunts and fantasy witch hunts.. real witches were women who were being persecuted for even being able to do math.. fantasy witches cast spells, curse towns and people, fly, turn in to monsters, summon demons, and kill people. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.

Tell me Bob, is every single instance of a woman being the "bad person" misogynous now? Cause I have family working at a women's prison and I wan't to make sure she knows that every woman there never did anything wrong, they are just victims of a misogynistic society - even the ones that murdered their entire family in cold blood. I've also played a number of games where there's a sorceress or a witch or a female demon or some crazy bitch on a power trip trying to destroy the world, are all those misogynistic? I'd ask if stuff where there's a female lead is okay, but I know it isn't since, after all, even if a woman is the hero, she's probably showing a bit of skin or through the virtue of simply having boobs is being exploited by being in a video game.

FFS this "everything is misogynistic" bull is getting out of control.

And your "I hate everything about the new star-trek" fan-rage is getting old and is incredibly ironic on the heels of your big "I'm sick of hearing these complaints" Intermissions. But, being the massive hypocrite you are, its okay to complain about stuff you don't like, but not stuff other people don't that you do or are indifferent to.

Wow Bob. I've watched some pretty crappy and pretentious reviews out of you, but this one you must have worked at.

First off, JJ Abrams. I'm not sure how I feel about it, and I think despite everything it still has potential. Remember, the first Star Wars movies were good because Lucas' wife at the time was a half decent writer, not Lucas himself.

Two, the whole witch hunt thing is just stupid. These are evil people, casting black magic with the intent to do bad things. If these people actually existed, you damn right people would have killed them. Its fiction Bob, it has no basis in reality whatsoever. Take off the white knight armor and relax.

Oh, look, MovieBob bagging on Star Trek 09 again. I guess that's one way to draw in comments when reviewing a completely forgettable Van Helsing knockoff.

Happy to credit the Hansel director for his work on Dead Snow, but tossing out the fact that Abrams brought Mission: Impossible back from the brink of eternal ridicule. It is my unprofessional opinion that the selection of Brad Bird to direct the fourth was insurance against losing that momentum.

We get it. You don't like Star Trek as space fantasy rather than science fiction. If anything, that makes him ideal to direct Star Wars, which is ENTIRELY a space fantasy. How do lightsabers work? We don't know! How does the Force work? EFF Midichlorians, we don't know! What powers the hyperdrives on the spaceships? It's bigger on the inside! Space fantasy!

You're talking about a saga wherein the biggest plot twist ever was that the big bad was actually the father of the hero, and where the only character in the prequels who was interesting to watch was the most evil guy in the universe!

In fact, didn't your review of Star Wars accuse Abrams of possible looking to recast Star Trek AS (among other things) Star Wars?

Abrams in, George out, possible original cast cameos... I'm really not seeing the downside so far.

MacNille:
edit. And if a women kills a man? It is not misandry. It just show her as a strong independent women.

I think you just reviewed Enough in less than 25 words.

It really baffles me what with everything that happened in the new Star Trek (which I liked) for some reason people only give a damn about the freaking lens flare.

And the only vibe I get from that complaint Moviebob is that you should always make the villain a white man to avoid unfortunate implications. Screw that.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here