well, i got my boxset in from VA & i watched the directors cut last night. great picture. sound was nothing special. the movie itself---well, it was different. slow, mildly interesting but labored. i got the point it was making but it just seems that it was too slow in making it. i can see how film critics love to call this a masterpiece but i can see why so many people hate or dislike this movie. what good is an intelligent movie if it is boring? kinda like armageddon....what good is an action flick, if it is boring? i am going to watch all the supplements & see if it grows on me (though i think that is unlikely). everyone says repeated viewing makes this movie better but i dont see how anyone could watch this movie over & over (although i know many of you have). the boxset is awesome & full of supplements but i just wish they had picked a better movie to have such a boxset. to each his own. i must be a crackhead as mentioned above.

[This message has been edited by brianluvdvd (edited March 17, 2000).]

Well at least if you decide you don't want to keep it you have some excellent trade material (or Ebay). I guess it's just not a movie for everyone.

One thing, don't take it too seriously - it is meant to be funny (in an acid way) and it is basically a nightmare/dream world, so there is a purpose behind all the confusion. If I can remember I was basically like you and was almost kind of bored with the movie when I first viewed it.

I suppose some see it as having one big central message that you are supposed to 'get' but IMO this isn't exactly what Gilliam intended. I see it as a series of satirical scenes/events and I see the main thrust being one man's battle against everything around him....but really this film could be whatever you want it to be too, I guess that's what I like.

Up until about March '99 (3 months after starting my DVD library), I was a Joe Six-pack. My collection was mostly "pop movies", like Austin Powers, Starship Troopers, Con Air (and please don't get me wrong, I still love all three of those movies, especially my very first disc ever, ST) I couldn't understand why the hell the studios included that goofy "widescreen" on one side of some discs, as it seemed pointless to me... not because of the "not seeing the full picture" as I hear so often, but because I was watching my films on a 19" TV. I don't think I had bought ANY movies that I hadn't watched more than once before for the first few months after I got my player. However, when the summer of '99 came around, and I slowly caught on to a few deals here and there, I beefed up my collection with such movies that I now love, such as Boogie Nights, Goodfellas, Seven Samurai, L.A. Confidential, etc... ONLY because of the fact that I'd heard them mentioned in conversations. Until I watched my first Kurosawa movie (SS), I had no clue what the hell was so special about this guy. The truth is, as I got into my huge months of purchases (November - December '99) due to deals I found on this forum and from other venues, I started ordering more and more diverse movies that I probably wouldn't have picked up off of the rental shelf if I'd have seen them back in my VHS days. I just have to thank the deluge of discounts and deals over the past six months or so for increasing my range of cinema appreciation. After that long introduction, I'd better move on. In November, I'd seen Brazil at a Virgin Megastore, and saw the insane pricetag it was going for. I figured for any set THAT expensive, it had to be pretty impressive. After some later research showing it to be a Gilliam film (I loved 12 Monkeys, so kill me), I used a few gift certificates and managed to get it... and wait for it for two months from buy.com. By the time I got the movie, I had built it up so high in my mind that it could have been complete crap and I would have enjoyed it, but it wasn't, thank God. It took a bit of getting used to, but Brazil just has that kooky sort of... I don't know, "Atmosphere" that got me hooked. However, if I hadn't been weaned on months of Monty Python movies, Young Frankenstein, Rushmore (still one of my favorite movies) and many other "strange" films, I'd probably be with the "this movie sucks azz" crowd. Not something I'm proud about, but I am glad to say that enjoyment of films grows not with age, but with experience of different styles of filmmaking. Ahhh, fuhgeddaboudit, I'm just rambling on again. I feel like watching Apocalypse Now again, so I'll be running along like a good little goonie.

------------------
~~moogz

"I got news for ya pal, you ain't leading but two things right now: Jack and Sh*t, and Jack left town."

I think this film is a masterpiece and one of the five best films I've seen in my entire life. Still, I wouldn't look down on somebody who didn't care for it and I definately wouldn't accuse people who didn't like it of 'not getting it'.

I thought 'Shakes the Clown' was one of the 30 best films I've ever seen, yet I'd hardly expect anybody to agree with that. You can't change people's tastes. And you can't expect to like something just because a bunch of other people liked it.

Feel free to form your own opinions about movies and don't be so bitter when other people have differing ones.

Brazil's pretty damn dense. It's almost a struggle to get through that last half hour, but it's worth it.

When I was going through the extras recently, I thought about the '80's as a whole, and it's hard to come up with a lot of bona fide masterpieces. In my mind, there's Brazil, Empire Strikes Back, and Raging Bull.

I didn't really like Brazil that much. I don't think it is a horrible movie though. I liked Terry Gilliams Time Bandits a lot more than Brazil.

Many have said (although I've never read a quote attributed to Terry Gilliam) that Time Bandits, Brazil, and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen are considered to be a "life trilogy," meaning that they approach the same thematic elements from the perspective of youth, adulthood, and old age, respectively. I haven't yet seen Brazil, but I fully expect to like it, since I really loved both of the other two movies in the "trilogy."

I have two questions. First, can anyone confirm or refute the trilogy notion? The idea does make a lot of sense, since there were some common elemts to the two movies I have seen, and also given that Time Bandits definitely takes a child's perspctive on life, and Baron Munchausen focuses largely on the effects of growing old. Second, of the people here who disliked Brazil, how many liked both Time Bandits and Baron Munchausen? Just curious.

Robo

For me, Brazil isn't one of those films that "grows on you"--I think people will pretty much know what they think of it on first viewing.

I like it quite a bit, myself. Then again, I don't think I've seen a Gilliam flick I haven't enjoyed and don't intend to pick up at some point. (...need...more...bargains...)

I'll cast my vote on the "brilliant" side, though like Drastic I'm skeptical that repeated viewings are going to help anyone who finds it boring...

RoboDad-- Thematically and stylistically, the trilogy notion works pretty well, but it certainly wasn't Gilliam's original plan, if that's what you're asking. It's more like something that people have layered on afterward, including (possibly?) the director himself...

Time Bandits and Baron VM are both MUCH more easily accessible than Brazil. Bandits almost works as mainstream Python humor, and both were written to be enjoyed by discerning kids as well as adults... I imagine it would be pretty easy to enjoy those and still find Brazil too dry or vague...

I can't think of ANY accurate "bellweather" films by which to predict one's response to Brazil-- but if you liked the above two films AND the John Hurt 1984 AND know who Tom Stoppard is, then you're pretty safe...<small>

[This message has been edited by alanbenson (edited March 23, 2000).]

quote:<HR>When I was going through the extras recently, I thought about the '80's as a whole, and it's hard to come up with a lot of bona fide masterpieces. In my mind, there's Brazil,Empire Strikes Back, and Raging Bull.<HR>

Aliens

if anyone's curious what a "real" movie critic thinks, you can check out ebert's ** review of brazil.
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_.../01/38231.html

NO MORE PAPERWORK!

------------------

Web-Today Destinations: Best of the Web, Seven Days a Week!

I borrowed a VHS copy of Brazil a few months ago and watched it. I wasn't in the best mood to watch a movie that day though. I had other things to do, and was antsy to go do them. I blame that for not liking the movie terribly. I really like Terry Gilliam, but just couldn't get into watching a movie that afternoon. I'll have to borrow the DVD and try it again sometime.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nyquil:
Aliens<HR>

Stop being dumb.

BTW, Roger Ebert was reviewing the terrible studio cut up version of Brazil. NOT the director's cut masterpiece which can be seen on DVD!
------------------
"THIS IS WHO WE ARE"

[This message has been edited by THX 1138 (edited March 25, 2000).]

masterpiece?

The American cut of BRAZIL is not markedly different from the Director's Cut (~10 minutes difference). I'm certain that Ebert would have given that version the same review.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Meatpants:
if anyone's curious what a "real" movie critic thinks, you can check out ebert's ** review of brazil.
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_.../01/38231.html <HR>

Yeah, and if you read Ebert's review you can tell that he completely misunderstood the film. I often agree with Ebert, but he was really way off on this one.

Michael Wilmington, another excellent film critic from Chicago, my native city, recently ran a story about films that won best picture in years where far better films were released. He cited 1985 as a prime example, stating that Brazil was vastly superior to Out of Africa, and that Brazil was the best film of 1985. The L.A. Film critics society named Brazil best picture in 1985.


"The majority is always wrong."
--Mark Twain

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Groucho:
The American cut of BRAZIL is not markedly different from the Director's Cut (~10 minutes difference). I'm certain that Ebert would have given that version the same review.<HR>

I thought he american version of Brazil was 94 minutes. The director's cut is 142 minutes.

BTW, lets not forget that Roger Ebert is the same idiot who gave SPEED 2 and SPAWN a thumbs up!


------------------
"THIS IS WHO WE ARE"

[This message has been edited by THX 1138 (edited March 26, 2000).]

THX:

The 94 minute version was not released theatrically. It was the version the studio wanted Gilliam to put out, but that he fought and fought against. Eventually, a 2 hour 11 minute version was released, one that was personally cut by Gilliam. This version was 11 minutes shorter than the Director's Cut, but maintained all of the same themes and pacing, including the "unhappy" ending.

You are confusing the American Theatrical Cut with the "Love Conquers All" Cut. That cut didn't surface until years later when it was used for television broadcasts.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by THX 1138:
Stop being dumb.<HR>

Um, excuse me, but Aliens is one of the best science fiction flicks of all time especially in terms of action/suspense. I don't know if I'd call it a "masterpiece" but it is definitely close to being one

------------------
The bane of my existence monetary wise

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jamezuva:
Um, excuse me, but Aliens is one of the best science fiction flicks of all time especially in terms of action/suspense. I don't know if I'd call it a "masterpiece" but it is definitely close to being one
<HR>

Hey Jamezuva,
That "Stop Being Dumb" comment now applies to you.


------------------
"THIS IS WHO WE ARE"

quote:<HR>Originally posted by RoboDad:


I have two questions. First, can anyone confirm or refute the trilogy notion? The idea does make a lot of sense, since there were some common elemts to the two movies I have seen, and also given that Time Bandits definitely takes a child's perspctive on life, and Baron Munchausen focuses largely on the effects of growing old. Robo<HR>

I heard a speaker talk about the films of Terry Gilliam last summer, and while i remember nothing of real significance, the distinction was made of his "sci-fi/fantasy trilogy" that is Time bandits, Brazil, and Adventures of Baron... I'd have to say i love all 3 of them, though right now, i'm leaning towards the Baron as my favorite. There is a definite progression through each movie, it is also clear that Gilliam is inserting a particular part of himself into each of his movies -- reading part of his own life/experiences/beliefs into each of his movies -- I would argue that his contribution in this way is more significant then the majority of directors we see currently, particularly in the US. That's just my opinion though.

Gotta love the conflict of fantasy and reason in "the adventures of Baron Munchausen" -- The age of reason, Wednesday.

hope that helps.

Tuan Jim
--on another note, after reading reviews at amazon.com, i'm wondering what people's opinions are regarding Gilliam's "Baron" vs. the original Polish(?) version.

------------------
Shop smart. Shop S-Mart.
--Ash

I believe those three movies are officially known as his 'dreams' trilogy.

From an aspiring filmmaker:

I first rented Brazil on VHS in 1987. The tape was unfortunately in very bad condition which made me much less 'open' to the movie and its style and I turned it off after an hour.

Over the years I kept hearing people rave about the film so when it was playing in 1993 at a local repratory cinema, I managed to catch a midnight showing with an audience of cultish "brazil-heads".

I am now one of them.

Brazil is abosultely awesome and ranks right up there in my top 10 of all time. It is an Orwellian dream movie with images that come from the dark recesses of the mind. It is not meant to be taken literally at all.

Brazil doesn't pander to any commercial sensibilities like so much of the Hollywood crap that hits theaters every year. Like 2001 it just goes completely in its own direction. That notion alone should be applauded.

I don't deride people who didn't like this film for "not getting it", as I didn't get it the first time I saw it. But open your mind a bit more and don't expect to be spoon fed a plotline. It is a dream movie and dreams don't necessarily follow a logical progression yet, like dreams, every image is significant.

I could go on and on about why this film is great but since I am not an eloquent critic I will stop now.

Bravo Ozymandias. Cool name too; interesting bit of mythology.