Dalbert Pringle
When it comes to riotously insane, 1980's cinema - You've really gotta see Terry Giliam's "Brazil" for yourself to actually believe it. You really do.This off-the-wall, cinematic roller-coaster ride into a retro-future is, without question, all about a "world-gone-mad" where endless bureaucracy has, literally, buried man, neck-deep, in a technological mess.The hilariously convoluted script of "Brazil" was clearly written (back in 1985) with some surprising foresight - As its story still retains its relevancy in these times of technological over-load that we find ourselves living in at present.Visually quite impressive - "Brazil" may not appeal to everyone's tastes - But, if nothing else - It is certainly a very unique movie-experience that is bound to draw the viewer into its nightmare world in no time flat.
Fletcher Conner
Brazil is one of the strangest movies I have ever seen, yet it is not out of character for Terry Gilliam. Jonathan Pryce stars as a mid level bureaucrat in a dystopian world that is a cross between 1984 and the DMV. In this fiscally-conscious big brother government that charges prisoners for their interrogations, there is a form for everything and the bureaucracy dominates all aspects of life. The plot is meandering and plays second fiddle to the absurdist aspects of the movie.There are no likable characters, so there is no reason for the viewer to care what happens to anyone. There are a few interesting characters, namely Robert De Niro and Bob Hoskins as the two opposite sides of the central air repair business. Ultimately, not much actually happens, and a fair bit of what happens is simply absurd side plots that go nowhere and add nothing to the story.
ElMaruecan82
"Brazil" has the title, the music and the creativity upon which masterpieces are made on, but it's like an irrepressible and suffocating twirling mass of the same paperwork that poison people's lives have taken over the plot, and it's only within its core that you can understand why this is such a great movie. But a better editing would have befitted such an ambitious plot, a pity Gilliam; the artist triumphed over the director. This is an artsy film with no direction.The last Gilliam film I watched was "The Fisher King" and it suffered the same syndrome. I enjoyed it but the story was never as brilliant and soul-penetrating as in the quieter and more realistic parts. It could have done without the Red Dragon hallucinations and even that Holy Grail subplot. But what Gilliams' movies say about him is that he has a sort of childlike obsession with "conflict" as something that can only be exposed through some big-scale extravaganza fights with high-tech effects and so forth, and that's exactly what almost ruined my enjoyment of "Brazil". The film is like a big party you're invited to, you enjoy yourself, you have fun, but because of two or three incidents, you're not sure you want to live the same experience again. Now, there's no doubt that the film is brilliant and it's a great satire against the overwhelming effect of bureaucracy and even technology (although it is displayed in a retro-futuristic way), we are all literate enough to get all the Orwellian vibes from the film, and even now, I can't imagine the hell of bureaucracy without that Brazilian tempo working in my mind. So, no one who criticized "Brazil" missed the point. But it's like Gilliam wants so much to emphasize the feeling of sheer confusion induced by the whole (mis)adventure that instead of making the story confusing by maintaining a solid plinth to the narrative, he made the experience of following the film, confusing as well. At one moment, you see Sam trying to find a woman, which in the actual setting is Herculean enough a task, and another moment, he's a warrior fighting a giant Samurai. I love some artistic licenses, but talk about overkill. Gilliam had a good story at hands but he goes for sensationalism while he had enough material to design something thrilling in the content, without going for such hyperbolic action sequences. The result is uneven and infuriating. When you trust your material, you don't need some pseudo psychedelic fights, chase sequences or other wall-crashing moments, action isn't always to be treated literally. Yes, this is a world that takes some monster Godzilla-like size, but I don't care that Gilliam wanted to pay homage to Kurosawa with the Samurai-figure, just make a tribute to "Ikiru" which was a real movie about bureaucracy, and it'll be fine. The same goes with the Brazilian escapist moments, first it's poetic and dreamlike, but they are so redundant that you don't know which story you're supposed to follow in the end. It says a lot about Gilliam and his tendency to make polarizing movies when they're no need for it. Indeed, we need a story, you can't make the cleverest satire without trying to confuse the audience but, it's like some suicidal impulse that is somewhat more fascinating than the film's content. I tried to watch "Brazil" twice, the first time, I fell asleep, the second, I turned it off because I was tired of trying to figure out what point he wanted to make with this or that scene. Now. I finally made it till the end, and while I acknowledge that there was some potential in this film and some scenes are nothing short but masterpieces: the Metropolis-like shots, any scene with Katharine Helmond and Ian Holm, and some brilliant little touches like the duct on the dog's poo-hole, this is still one of the cases where the final cut should've been shorter. The element that is constantly praised by the fans is the critics against bureaucracy, well, that makes the whole fights and chases quite useless, and what about the heart of the story: Sam? Sam Lowry, played by Jonathan Pryce, was a great character, the perfect straight man to this tragicomedy. Why not making him someone who really wants to go to Brazil? Why not creating some deeper connection with the woman, not just "curiosity"? How about the Harry Tuttle guy? The film had plenty of directions to take, but it just makes his main protagonist wander in a dystopian universe, encountering the most eccentric characters, and punctuate the film with a few actions sequences and weird nightmarish intrusions.I love the way Siskel described the movie: "It beautifully beats to death one point" He nails it. This is the film the expressions "insisting upon itself" was invented for, and even the whole bureaucracy thing is a bit overrated. I don't know if this review will be useful for anyone, but if I want a great and short satire about bureaucracy, I watch "The Place That Sends You Mad" segment from "The Twelve Tasks of Asterix". Now, that's perhaps the best critic against bureaucracy ever made, and it didn't need any special effects or fight sequences.As for "Brazil", Gilliam is one hell of a director and writer, but you know, there's a reason why they also give Oscars for "editing". As I said for another Gilliam's film, it's like the directing's style stealing the story's thunder.
brooke-roberson
This review does contain a spoiler to the ending! Please watch the movie Brazil before reading this review! Enjoy! Reality and Fantasy… these concepts are heavy themes in the movie Brazil (just look at the film's poster artwork!). Cross-references are predominant at critical shifts. One example is when Sam leaves Jill's apartment and the word REALITY is graffitied in the ally. This at the same time the fantasy theme music "Brazil" can be heard playing over the radio in his car. This is clue to the audience, telling us we must be careful what we believe is truly going on. This fight between fantasy and reality on screen is sometimes called "magical realism." This is how director Terry Gillian chose to describe the film given it presumably takes place in our real world but with everything imagined so differently. The world as it would look under an oppressive, secretive government.In most dystopia films the hero tends to believe in his fantasies of a better life so powerfully that it launches him to combat his reality. It's that fantasy that gives him the courage to become a hero. This is nowhere more true than in Sam. His life is so out of balance that he often will voluntarily gets lost in his fantasy of flying high in the clouds where he meets a beautiful woman. This is true for some people, although it tends to go by the term, Delusion. I often wonder, If you sit in your bed for hours and dream about your fantasies, then is it true that your fantasy is your reality for the time you spend sitting there? Fantasy & reality, the cycle of life and death, and the concept that life is just a dream are fundamental ideas in most secret societies. The Ministry of Information is a type of secret society. The symbols of secret societies are often in plain view and will reveal many truths to those who are inducted into the society, or those who are able to analyze the messages themselves. I believe the shape of the letter "i" is indicative of two things. One, it's a cross-reference to the "all seeing 'eye'" and two, its in the shape of a coffin. The information that differentiates us from animals, the knowledge of our own death.Sam's dreams are his way of escaping his reality. If he consumes himself in his fantasy long enough then in essence that becomes his reality and the horrific presence the Ministry plays in his life. This is true in the final torture scene as well. He checks out of the real world and fantasizes what he would have liked to have had happened. This is how he escapes the pain of his torture. but even that fantasy crumples apart into a nightmare.Gillian also pays attention to the different ways people observe their fantasies. Sam's mother, for example, fantasizes about being young and has every plastic surgery she can to maintain a "youthful" appearance. She is actually truly altering her appearance. She looks in the mirror and is so satisfied, but is she really beautiful? And again, some people do this only it tends to be called Body Dysmorphia. But this is true for Sam too. In his fantasy himself and Jill are both much more good looking then they actually are.
