Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: 'Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters' sets the bar high for 2013's worst films

Who was this made for, and why?

  • Critic's Rating D
  • Readers' Rating B
<p>'Wait a minute... this isn't the actual script we're using, is it?' 'I don't know. I'm just picking up paychecks till it's time for the Avengers sequel.'</p>

'Wait a minute... this isn't the actual script we're using, is it?' 'I don't know. I'm just picking up paychecks till it's time for the Avengers sequel.'

Credit: Paramount Pictures

Are you a fan of Motion Captured?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

I reviewed Tommy Wirkola's "Dead Snow" at Sundance back in 2009, and I was not a fan.  As I said in that piece, "'Dead Snow' takes a really great monster to build a film around - Nazi zombies - and somehow adds up to total mediocrity in execution."  Well, looks like Wirkola is two for two now.  When you're making a film called "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters," you can approach it as a horror film first, or you can approach it as a dark comedy, or you could perhaps approach it as a really boring action movie that flubs both the horror and the comedy.

Guess which approach Wirkola opted for.

The script by Wirkola and Dante Harper opens with a very dark rendition of the classic Hansel and Gretel story, and right away, it feels like they're rushing to get through that moment instead of taking the time to tell it.  I think it's actually sort of clever to start with that fairy tale, let us really see what that witch is like, and then once the kids deal with her and save themselves, jump forward to see that they've taken this on as their life's work.  I can see how that premise could work.  It just doesn't work here, in this film.

Part of the problem, as I mentioned, is tone.  FIrst, you've got the witches, and they're portrayed as creepy monsters, as many different types of witch as there are actors to play them.  There's some nice make-up design, and Famke Janssen as the main witch, Muriel, certainly does what she can to make the role interesting.  But any good work done in thinking up the witches in the film is undone by the script, which not only fumbles the horror elements, but which also manages to make every action scene noisy without ever once making one of them thrilling.

Jeremy Renner is on autopilot here.  There's nothing interesting about the character, and Gemma Arterton is similarly beached by the script.  Every conversation, ever line, every beat is about plot.  They are blanks as characters.  It's like the thinking stopped with "… and then they fight witches."  As you can imagine, if there's nothing interesting about the main characters, the rest of the cast doesn't stand a chance.  Thomas Mann, the start of last year's "Project X," plays a local kid who has collected newspaper clippings about the witch-hunting career of Hansel and Gretel, and he is excited to get a chance to help them with their latest job.  Honestly, the most interesting character in the film is a troll played by Derek Mears and voiced by Robin Atkin Downes, but Wirkola doesn't know what to do with the character.

That's really the easiest way to sum up the entire production.  There's good work by individual departments, and it certainly looks like a movie, but it is inert from opening to closing.  It is a simulated movie.  I hate that feeling, like everyone stopped working the minute someone said the title, like that was all the effort anyone needed to make.  I had the same reaction to "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," but at least that film came first.  How lazy is that?  "Hey, someone took a famous name and a monster and put the word 'hunter' after it.  We could do that, too."  Yes, but why?  I can't imagine Wirkola would ever take this movie down from the DVD shelf and watch it for pleasure, so why should I cut it any slack?  I love horror movies.  I love action movies.  I love wicked crazy comedies.  I love it when someone plays some sort of clever meta-textual game.  I love all the ingredients here, but it's so flat that I can't, in good conscience, even give it a pass.

The greatest crime in modern studio filmmaking is the waste of assets.  When I see a small film where the filmmakers obviously didn't have much at their disposal but they have figured out how to make the most of it, I can't help but give the filmmakers an extra bit of credit for the way they met the challenge.  So the opposite is also true.  When I see a filmmaker given a wealth of resources and the support of a studio like Paramount and what they come up with is this dull, this uninspired, this much of a waste of time and money, I find it just that little bit more offensive.  Wirkola's work so far is like a big plate full of soyburgers that look delicious but which have no flavor at all, undercooked and unpleasant.  Spare yourself and skip this trip through the woods, because there's nothing to see here.

"Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" is open in theaters everywhere today.

Drew-mcweeny-sm
Drew McWeeny
Film Editor
A respected critic and commentator for fifteen years, Drew McWeeny helped create the online film community as "Moriarty" at Ain't It Cool News, and now proudly leads two budding Film Nerds in their ongoing movie education.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    rico fardan

    Felt the same about Dead Snow, which wasted a cool idea in a lame-ass splatter-bore-fest. Judging from the trailers I had the feeling Hansel & Gretel is more of the same and your words seem to confirm that.

    January 25, 2013 at 4:52PM EST Reply to Comment
    • I rented Dead Snow at some point when I was checking out low-budget, hopeful up-and-coming directors, and my feelings about his work was the same as Drew's. He's a severely no-talent guy just trying to create a career based on the tag line of an idea behind his films, without any style or ability to make anything of those ideas. He's the worst kind of filmmaker-- there's no dividing line in taste here, no "well, I don't like his films but as least I can give him some credit for trying something new or different." This is the worst kind of lazy, uninspired, cash-grab filmmaking. Wirkola is to filmmaking what Sergei Titov (the guy behind The War Z) is to video games-- a shame on the industry and an insult to us all. I was shocked when I saw the trailer and found out that an actual studio had given him a big budget to piss into a burning trash can in an empty alleyway.

      January 25, 2013 at 8:36PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Mark

    But is it bad enough to be worth heckling while tipsy? A friend suggested seeing it just to mock it.

    January 25, 2013 at 4:53PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Crow3711 You're the one giving these idiots you're money, so who is laughing at who in that situation really?

      January 25, 2013 at 5:30PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho Exactly. Spend your money on something of quality. PLEASE. Be smarter than the executives who think so little of us.

      January 26, 2013 at 4:14AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      ungruntled It's true that from the studio perspective, every dollar spent on a movie is a vote for more movies like that. But the exhibitors don't really care, because they don't create the movies; they make their money on concessions. Basically, if you go to a multi-screen mega-cinema, they couldn't care less which movie you actually see, as long as you're showing up and buying a ticket (and, hopefully, a fistful of snacks).

      So if you really, really MUST see some piece of crap like this, you're free to buy a ticket to, say, Django or ZD30, and then screen-hop. That's assuming, of course, that the movie you're targeting isn't a sellout; you weren't going to buy a ticket for "Crazy Heart" and sneak into "Avatar," for example. But I don't think anybody expects that to be a problem with H&G.

      January 28, 2013 at 2:57PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Roy

    "Soyburgers that look delicious but which have no flavor at all" is an excellent, excellent analogy.

    Haven't seen this, but the growing popularity of the action-packed movie - with all the fx, production values and talent money can buy - that turns out to be a completely joyless/lifeless "product" instead of a movie is pretty depressing.

    I'm still bummed by the lifeless products Amazing Spider-Man, Snow White and the Huntsman and Total Recsll turned out to be.

    January 25, 2013 at 5:07PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Randy of AFTimes

    This is what I was worried about-the tone of the movie (from the trailer) didn't feel right to me.

    I dug ABRAHAM LINCOLN-VAMPIRE HUNTER precisely because it understood what kind of movie it was and embraced it.

    This just doesn't look... FUN.

    January 25, 2013 at 6:27PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Batboy_talkback_profile

    Rev. Slappy

    Hollywood Reporter says Movie 43 is one of the worst films of all time. Sounds like a rough weekend at the local cineplex.

    January 25, 2013 at 7:27PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Jeff Mclachlan

    88 minutes and bumped to the end of January. That should tell you everything you need to know.

    January 25, 2013 at 8:51PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    mgrabois

    I wonder what the cast and crew think when they're making these bad movies. They've got to know that it's bad, right? Can the script be really good but once they start filming it turns horrible? Or are they really doing it for the paycheck? After his last couple of years, I can't believe Jeremy Renner would do a movie like this just for the money, unless he owes someone a favor or something.

    January 26, 2013 at 1:27AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    George Kaplan

    I can't wait for the RiffTrax for this.

    January 26, 2013 at 2:21AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    CinemaPsycho

    I'm actually sick right now and don't feel up to making a trip to the theater. Nice to know I can skip this one and not feel like I missed anything.

    January 26, 2013 at 4:12AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Planetix

    The odds were stacked against this thing from the outset: Trendy mashup concept, stupid title, unappealing leads - are there two more boring mainstream actors today then Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton? If they were a wall color, they'd be semi-gloss eggshell - no real villian (unless "a real huge pile o'witches" counts)....I dunno, it looked dumb from the start. Could have surprised us all! Then the joke'd be on us, but no.

    Between this and Buffy Lincoln, Vampire Slayer I'd say this strain of peanut butter in my chocolate genre mis-mash has about had it's run in Hollywood.

    January 27, 2013 at 9:23PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Rose

    I admit I saw the film only because Jeremy was in it. But I loved the gore and I did move my head & blink when things came flying out at me, due to the 3D. I laughed when most of the audience didn't. It's a campy, tongue in cheek, fun movie. That's why all the serious movie watchers and critics hate it.

    January 28, 2013 at 11:21AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      John Serious movie watchers and critics love a good campy movie as much as the next bloke. If it's got the right tone, it works. Clearly, Drew thought the tone was one of the things that killed it as a "fun" movie. But keep laughing at jokes no one else does and dodging bad 3D. You are precisely who the studios are making this trash for.

      January 28, 2013 at 11:53AM EST

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web