Oh, January. If all of the Oscar-contenders released during the holidays are the big party, then January movies are clearly the god-awful hangover.
“Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters” is a bad movie. I like bad movies; my friends even tell me I have “BMS” — Bad Movie Syndrome. But there are two types of bad movies: There is the film that knows it is bad but has fun anyway, and then there’s the film that makes you happy the Graphic reimburses you for seeing movies and writing reviews.
“Hansel and Gretel” gives a very stylized take on the classic Brothers Grimm tale. Rather than becoming the witch’s dinner, the young siblings fight back, escape and take up a new profession.
The film’s setting is the generic Anytown of Europe somewhere between the 17th and 19th centuries. The hunters have sensationalized weaponry consisting of automatic crossbows and Gatling guns — don’t tell Dianne Feinstein. The film attempts to use anachronisms cleverly, much like “A Knight’s Tale,” but the majority of them fail rather than revive the popularity of “We Will Rock You.”
There’s some fun to be had with the traditional lore of witches. Hansel and Gretel’s first encounter with the witch does take place in a house made of candy. There is even a joke about how Hansel developed diabetes from all the candy the witch forced him to eat. Like much of the film, however, this is drawn out and overused. The first time a witch hops on her broom is entertaining, but it loses its value each subsequent time.
The first few encounters with witches are fun to watch. The action is intense, over-the-top and violent — very violent. One of the few areas in which this movie succeeds is with its gore. Heads explode, limbs are torn off and walls are painted with splatters of red stuff. It gives any video game a run for its money and does it well. I’m a fan of good gore, and the gore is done well. But the combat falls into a repetitive formula. Each time there is a fight, the witch somehow deflects the bullets and then disarms the siblings. The scene ends with a lot of over-the-top punches that send people flying into trees and rocks.
The actors are hit or miss. Gemma Arterton (Gretel), who is better than her track record would show (“Prince of Persia,” and “Clash of the Titans”), does as well as anyone could with the material. I like her as a female action star. She is classy but doesn’t mind getting her hands dirty. She also rocks the leather pants.
I also have to call out Peter Stormare, who plays the sheriff with a bad attitude. Though his name may not be famous, his face is easily recognizable. He always plays seedy, underworld types (“Fargo,” “Armageddon” and “Bad Boys II”) and he makes an otherwise forgettable character memorable.
Jeremy Renner (Hansel) and Famke Jannsen (“X-Men”) merely phone in their performances. Hollywood keeps trying to tell us that Renner is the new action star, but I didn’t see him cast in either “Expendables” film — clearly, he still has work to do.
I’m an optimist and I try to find the good in everything. But as you’ll notice, I haven’t made mention of the plot yet. That’s because it’s terrible. I’ve seen stronger stories in Songfest.
“Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters” may be nominated for this year’s Razzies. It may be showing at the Malibu theater, but don’t even go on half-price Thursday. Now if you’re looking for an out before Valentine’s Day, you might consider taking your significant other to this film for your last date (if you’re one of the seven people at Pepperdine who dates). It’s a gory, repetitive romp not worth a first-look.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Follow the Graphic on Twitter: @PeppGraphic
