This movie is awful, do people actually like it? It's just a bunch of Monty Python stuff stuck together with a lame, generic plot and terrible acting. The special effects are nice but don't contribute anything, it's an utter drag to get through.
This movie is awful, do people actually like it?
>do people actually like it?
Yes. Was that all?
What do you like about it? Is it literally just "wow special effects" and "hehe it's a funny bureaucratic dystopian! he needs to file paperwork to fix an air conditioner!"
Eat shit, loser.
I'm being 100% genuine, what do you like about it? Maybe I just didn't get it. I like Terry Gillem's other stuff because I feel like it has more going on, this felt like was the same joke over and over about a dystopian bureaucratic nightmare, the same paperwork jokes. The constant plastic surgery jokes are peak boomer humour as well.
The only funny or interesting concept was de Niro being a rogue terrorist air conditioner repair man, but he's barely in it.
The art direction is amazing, the casting is perfect, the world building is unlike anything and it is really successfully executed, a funny yet believable take on a dystopian future, the story is captivating yet not spoonfed to you, and it is overall really memorable.
I haven't seen the film in years and I still remember it more than films I saw 2 months ago. Gilliam took advantage of the studios and made art rather than blockbusters. If you like film or art then you find a ton of stuff to appreciate in this movie.
If you don't like it then that's fine but it is one of the best movies ever made in Hollywood.
>the casting is perfect
You think? Jonathan Pryce is fricking awful to me. Jill's actress is pretty good but completely wasted. She's decent at first as a strong independent woman but then she just runs along with Pryce's fantasy. She goes from someone who's clearly unlike his fantasy image, to wearing a fricking wig for him, for no reason. Because he tried to save some people in a bomb blast?
And there's this weird narrative where he's unsure of her and can't trust her because he thinks she might be a terrorist, even though he's captivated by de Niro's antics who is 100% a terrorist and Pryce is totally aware because his department has a hit out for him.
>the world building is unlike anything
It's just a million rehashed jokes, like
>lady who got plastic surgery keeps wearing bandages
>repair men keep fricking up his apartment
>snooty waiter is snooty
>someone has to fill out a form to do something trivial
none of which feels very novel. Again, I liked the idea of the renegade air conditioner man, de Niro says something funny like he started this job for the excitement and that's why he doesn't become a professional, but it's such a small element of this mess and doesn't go anywhere.
I think you missed the point entirely. Better stick to watching tik-tock videos, zoomer.
What was the point then? Tell me
the themes of the work are clear and speak for themselves
That’s all you took away from it eh?
I'm so sick of these braindead zoomer reductionist takes.
They always have to immediately categorize and put it into a neat little box, rather than allowing the movie to be an experience that leaves things open to reflect upon over time.
TELL ME ABOUT YOUR FRICKING EXPERIENCE THEN
jesus christ, it shouldn't be hard
Yes let me tell you of the time where i remembered the movie while trying to pay for a fine which i wasn't allowed to pay because the government building didn't receive the paperwork they needed in order to accept my money but i still needed to pay for it else i couldn't renew my driver's license. Thankfully the car did start even though my license was expired.
Or maybe let me tell you about the time i watched this movie with my then-gf and we had this wonderful connection through the themes of the movie. She being an entrepreneur was really able to relate to the themes of government arbitrariness.
Or maybe let me tell you about every little electric impulse that this movie has sparked upon me since the first time i saw it.
Or maybe, maybe i can resume all of that by saying that it's is one of the greatest movies ever made. So frick off, moron.
If you don't want to talk about the movie then why are you even in this thread?
Oh I see, you just want to act superior and defend a movie which critics universally like because that means it has to be good and there's no point actually talking about the movie when it's already established (by other people) that it's good.
>when it's already established (by other people) that it's good
Which other people? I haven't read a single review about the movie. Can you please give a link and a view count of said link in order to assess your affirmation? I only got you on a little tour of why i relate to the movie and why i like it, on a personal basis, yet you don't seem to be at all satisfied by my thoughts, despite being exactly what you have been asking throughout the thread.
>On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a 98% rating based on 47 reviews with an average rating of 8.7/10. The site's critical consensus reads "Brazil, Terry Gilliam's visionary Orwellian fantasy, is an audacious dark comedy, filled with strange, imaginative visuals."[55] On Metacritic, it has a score of 84 out of 100 based on 18 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim".[56]
>I only got you on a little tour of why i relate to the movie and why i like it, on a personal basis, yet you don't seem to be at all satisfied by my thoughts
Have you? Link your post
Anon You might be blind
Lol are you saying that this bullshit
is actually your basis for enjoying the film? I thought you were joking
So if anyone puts a story in front of you about basic "bureaucracy = bad" you're going to enjoy it?
Concept is not the only reason people like a movie, I think if it were there would be no shitty movies out there because everyone can get behind a concept.
A movie is about a lot more than that
>bureaucracy = bad
yes, autism.
It's not about just that, because of the HOW. Movie are about how you represent that. When you watch Brazil in the times of MCU tier CGI you get a movie that seems absolutely real, where everything can be touched and interacted upon, yet the problems the chacters deal with are absolutely in the conceptual realm, to the point where the protagonist is turned mad by an absolutely logical chain of events that are sparked by a completely random event (the fricking fly in the sheet of paper). Frame by frame the protagonist starts to drown in his own thoughts as a defense mechanism to escape the crushing reality he lives in. (you), the zoomer gaygor viewer do not realize this because you equate built sets to reality. But anyone with half a brain that has viewed this movie throughout the years has already realized that, yet you come here with all your autism to try to dismantle something that no one dared to dismantle not by virtue of being part of a hivemind and lacking individual thought, but because it is absolutely obvious by the end of the movie that it takes and absolutely massive amount of autism and homosexualry to come here and try to dispute that.
>It's not about just that, because of the HOW.
Yes you just summed up exactly what I said and asked for, because you hadn't explained the how at all in that post.
>When you watch Brazil in the times of MCU tier CGI you get a movie that seems absolutely real, where everything can be touched and interacted upon, yet the problems the chacters deal with are absolutely in the conceptual realm
So your argument here is just "practical sets are better than CGI, therefore it's good". Yes practical effects are better but that's not what I'm arguing here and a story is more than just effects.
>to the point where the protagonist is turned mad by an absolutely logical chain of events that are sparked by a completely random event (the fricking fly in the sheet of paper)
lmao are you sure I'm the one who didn't understand this movie? The bureaucracy is not meant to be logical at all, it's completely illogical how people rely on paperwork and nobody believes it possible that a mistake has been made. It is clearly all exaggerated and blown out off proportion.
Your attempts to strawman me as a zoomer are an absolute copout and evidence that you can't believe in independent thought, that everyone has to enjoy this movie and if you don't you must be moronic. You're clearly just feeding into the hivemind over this movie, the only argument here is "lele you didn't get that he was descending into insanity" even though it's spelled out to you in the end.
Ok moron, first of all, not that anon, second, they literally mentioned EXECUTION as an important part, not simply the concept and third: YES, bureaucracy=bad
>they literally mentioned EXECUTION as an important part
You mean in this post?
He just lists his personal reasons for liking the film, nothing about execution.
...do You even understand how this site works? Check the other respondes FROM the same anon You idiot
Lmao do YOU understand how this site works? Every post is anonymous you moron, how am I supposed to know which posts are his
he literally listed off in what context he enjoyed the movie. are you blind or moronic?
Contrarian cope
Same. they lack joy and imagination.
It’s the post postmodernistic post irony bullshit, these people sniff their own farts while congratulating themselves for using words like meta or foreshadowing.
>"heh you just don't get it moron"
>nobody can actually explain why they like this movie
yes, one of the best films ever made
Why
Because you don’t like it.
Because wow special effects and hehe it's a funny bureaucratic dystopian! he needs to file paperwork to fix an air conditioner!
You can literally make any movie sound stupid and pointless with that logic. You are moronic.
How is what I'm saying stupid and pointless? I'm saying it unironically.
You act like you don't know how shit you are at making a point. What was your point exactly? Tell me. Reread your post.
You mentioned that the movie has great special effects, is a funny dystopian future, and made a reference to a story moment. Besides writing "wow" and "hehe", what point did you make?
Again, you are moronic.
That's not me. I've made multiple points here
and here
Also on the rest of the casting, Michael Palin just plays Michael Palin and every other character is useless (except for de Niro who I reiterate is the only good part of the film). I can't think of anyone else who's good or interesting, the mother? One of his bosses? I think the first bioss who doesn't want Pryce to leave is decent I guess.
Oi! You gotta loicense for that hot take?!
This was the first Criterion I ever bought when I was like 13 because I saw the cover and read the back of the DVD case and it looked really cool.
I literally fell asleep every single time I tried to watch it.
12 monkeys is a much better Gilliam dystopia film
>12 monkeys is a much better Gilliam dystopia film
Yeah it's probably his best one. It hits every pretty much every theme in Brazil but better, from the pointless task of Bruce Willis collecting bugs, to exploiting a defenceless underclass of prisoners for time travel, to the idea of the gubmint only wanting to find out about the plague and not stop it, misdirection with Brad Pitt, and an interesting love story I was invested in instead of "he fantasised about someone that looks like her".
It was just really refreshing to see Brad Pitt actually play a character for once instead of himself.
Too bad he got typecast as handsome douche ever since
I agree, it's one of his few roles I actually like. He's actually a decent actor.
I know right? really makes you wonder what could have been
It's shit. I couldn't even finish it and I really tried to. It's simply boring, that's all there is to it.
I think people who find it boring are expecting it to be vibrant, action-heavy, fast pacing, overly dramatic spoonfed stuff like 99% of other Hollywood products.
Gilliam gives you something original, masterfully executed, dry and funny, and sincere and you don't like the taste of it because it's not what you're used to. You are probably someone who prefers McDonalds and hamburgers for every meal rather than ever eating anything with more than 3 flavors (fried, salt, and condiments). There are plenty of hamburger movies for you to watch, quit complaining.
>Gilliam gives you something original
Can you please tell me what is original about it? Because it feels extremely uninspired to me actually
>main plot is a man bored with his job who fantasises about the perfect woman
>she's more androgynous in reality and doesn't like him, but then he woos her and she turns into his ideal woman
There are a million films that have done that and better. In fact the way she goes from tomboy to his lovedoll is embarrassing, most films are more tasteful than that. Imagine if Trinity suddenly had bleach blonde hair and wore a sundress at the ending of The Matrix.
And the rest is
>fascist bumbling bureaucracy controls and fricks up everything
Which Gilliam has done a bunch of times before but much better.
Literally every story has a basic foundation in order to be relatable. Do you seriously think any movie is actually like Brazil? Not in terms of themes but in terms of execution, the actual movie. Is anything you've ever seen so similar that Brazil seems "uninspired"? That's probably the worst criticism I've ever heard of this film.
Picking out elements of the movie out of context and saying "done before" doesn't work. Every single movie and story can be dumbed down into archetypes and tropes but the films themselves can be nothing alike. That's not how you prove something isn't "original".
If you want a movie that has absolutely nothing remotely relatable to it then watch something avant garde that relies on only original symbolism and has no story structure. Tell me how much you enjoy that compared to Brazil. Your point is dogshit.
>Literally every story has a basic foundation in order to be relatable. Do you seriously think any movie is actually like Brazil? Not in terms of themes but in terms of execution, the actual movie.
Yeah actually I do, it unironically reminds me of the Star Wars prequels, it's all about worldbuilding, costumes, design, special effects in this alternate reality but absolutely no story to speak of. All your arguments seem to be skirting around this fact, probably because there's nothing about the story worth praising.
The movie is nothing without the special effects and design. And Terry Gilliam/ Monty Python have already done a lot of movies with these interesting design elements that are actually held together by a story. I'd rather watch those.
>That's probably the worst criticism I've ever heard of this film.
Can you tell me where you think the inspiration is? Because I don't see it. Movies about excessive bureaucracy that devalues human life and leads to a fascist hellscape have been done before. It seems to me they didn't go with the narrative of Pryce going off with de Niro and becoming a terrorist because that would be too obvious. But instead he does.... nothing? Except run after some girl.
The love story is bland, and has no motivation. Pryce fantasises about someone that looks like Jill, OK. Jill doesn't care for him because she has no reason to, OK. Then they get in a bombing together and Jill decides she wants to frick him now? Again, it's like the prequels in how bad and illogical this love story is.
>how bad and illogical this love story is.
It is not illogical at all. In fact, the logic of the movie is well explained through it, if you watch until the end. I'm surprised mr. Autism Mchomosexual has such difficulty in grasping it. The movie has a clear pattern, almost like a musical tune to it, which gets louder and louder until the end.
>The movie has a clear pattern, almost like a musical tune to it, which gets louder and louder until the end.
Fricking hell I'm sick of everyone defending the movie in this thread with vague ideas of "you didn't get it :^)" when you're clearly unable to explain it yourself
This guy
is the only one to actually explain it logically
You're a homosexual. Is that logical enough for you?
>it's a "the protagonist gets increasingly crazy with each interaction" episode
like pottery
Kek. I feel more like Jill than Pryce, going to people trying to get a resolution for something but they're just stonewalling and giving shitty answers and deflecting.
not same poster, the love story is awful but I think the way a lot of individual scenes are executed is enough for me to call it a great movie with flaws. the story is about an ordinary directionless man who becomes a terrorist because of the society around him. I genuinely havent seen many movies like that and the setting and characters of the movie (except for the girl) are pretty great in my opinion. I think a movie is a sum of its scenes more than anything else, especially since thats literally what a movie is, a bunch of interconnected scenes. There are a lot scenes that I consider some of my favorite and most memorable, so thats why I enjoy and like Brazil.
>There are a lot scenes that I consider some of my favorite and most memorable
Which ones?
The scene where Sam meets his new boss being followed around by coworkers after being introduced to information procesing
The scene where Sam meets his friend while strapped to a chair at the end
The scene where Tuttle meets Sam
The scene in the intro where the police ask the woman to sign a receipt on her husband
The scene where Sam fights with his coworker over the shared table
The scenes where everyone instantly goes back to pretending to work and then fool around in front of Sams old boss
The entire ending dream sequence
To name a few
Yeah, nice scenes I'll admit.
I think this movie is a case of style but no substance.
>muh story
plotgays get the rope
kek, this reminds of me of this post
plot is an essential element of a movie. You can have a simple, serviceable plot for a movie that is more about the other stuff like style, but Brazil fails even in that department.
Name a better film with similar premise
There are none, it's literally 1984 meets The Trial.
If you want typical Gilliam themes then most of his other movies are better like Twelve Monkeys and Baron Munchausen, I listed some ways it's better here
Eraserhead hits the industrial dystopian theme better
Akira also does the dystopian bureaucratic future theme, but better
Blade Runner a bit too
Never watched/ read 1984 but it sounds like that's pretty similar too
>Never watched/ read 1984 but it sounds like that's pretty similar too
read 1984, Fahrenheit 451, brave new world and Anthem. These are the four books that deal with the themes of the movie from different angles and they are (arguably) the sources of inspiration for the movie. Maybe add The Trial as the other anon pointed out as well.
the trial movie adaptation by welles is worth watching too, brazil and the trial would be a good double feature
The concepts aren't hard to grasp, everyone knows what 1984 is about even if they've never read it. I understood what it was going for, it just never really amounts to anything.
>none of them are hitting the bureaucratic theme to the same degree as Brazil
Yeah fair but that's kind of my point. In Akira the bureaucratic nightmare is more a background to a greater story, which is swept aside by the army guy or intrudes in the story in other ways. It's a more complicated story than two+ hours of "silly bureaucracy is bad".
Like I said in my post (but you chose to ignore) Twelve Monkeys actually hits the bureaucracy angle better; prisoners treated as tools by the state, trying to get concrete and logical results from something vague and inexplicable like time travel. But then there's a lot more going on, a mystery for Bruce Willis to solve, misdirection with Brad Pitt and an actual good love story. It still ends on a bleak bureaucratic note, with Willis killed and learning that this future government actually supports the genocide of most of humanity. But I actually feel sad for Willis and angry at this government. With Brazil I don't.
In Baron Munchauson the bureaucracy is more of a minor element too, it's dressed up as the assuredness of scientific reason against the false-but-somehow-real fantasies of the Baron. It brushes aside the scientific reason of shitheads early on and goes through a fantasy reality with meaning.
Honestly Brazil is just Gilliam's pure spiteful bitterness on display. Instead of any meaningful development in this bureaucratic nightmare we just get hit over the head with it constantly, and a character I never care about is driven insane by it. OK.
Maybe if his attempt for him to make his fantasies reality and become a terrorist involved him joining de Niro and not this lame-ass love story I might have enjoyed it, but no, it's the biggest failure of the film, in a story that doesn't really have any other substance.
>Yeah fair but that's kind of my point.
What? You were asked to list films with a similiar premise and then listed a bunch that barely/if at all fit the criteria of said premise. I'm not ignoring you listing his earlier work (mostly because I agree its better), I'm just only adressing the 2nd part since it's moronic
the dude praising akira movie is full of shit, akira's complex themes only come out in the fricking manga. the movie itself is a classic example style over substance.
I never praised it, it was an example, although I concede not a very good one.
Here's a better one, Being John Malkovich. A similar loser stuck in a deadend job in a ridiculously sad office space finds a way to live out fantasies and loses touch with reality. He's got a love interest who's infinitely cooler than him as well, like Jill.
But Being John Malkovich has 10x the intricacy and complexity than Brazil does. The love triangle is a thousand times more nuanced, and instead of getting this girl who he has shallow feelings for, she recognises that and rejects him. We're shown the depths of John Cusack's patheticness and self-absorption, and get to see the end result of giving into his fantasies. The love interest has a lot more character and interest than a fricking lovedoll like Jill, and there's an interesting added dynamic with John Cusack's wife who he's not interested in anymore.
Being John Malkovich actually moves through a story with different elements and explores different things. He isn't stuck in an office the entire movie, jumping into John Malkovich's head occasionally until he's driven insane with nothing important going on around him.
it just kind of seems like you're desperately reaching for examples that don't really prove anything you're arguing
Seems to me you're being deliberately obtuse and not engaging with my arguments.
Being John Malkovich is a perfect example of a dead end loser stuck in a shitty bureaucratic job deciding to indulge in fantasy, the initial premise is a lot like Brazil. But it actually moves through a fully fledged story, John Cusack actually succeeds in his fantasy through some unique skills, the women in his life have their own agency and aren't just his puppets, there's some interesting concepts in the mode of fantasy they engage in and so on.
Of course Being John Malkovich is an unusually intricate movie, I don't expect every movie or Brazil to be like that, it's just an example of a fleshed out story with the same concept. Brazil doesn't really move beyond the initial premise. And like I said here
if it was deliberately simple and got the basics right maybe it could work, but it sort of reaches for a complexity that isn't there while having shit and uninteresting characters.
I'm fully expecting another "lol u are le dumb" response to this where you ignore everything I've said.
To elaborate on this, imagine if you took the story of Twelve Monkeys, but Bruce Willis never actually travels back in time. He just collects bugs, hangs out in his prison cell, and dreams about some vague love interest who doesn't really exist to him. The movie ends with some breakout attempt which is a farce because he's actually been driven insane.
That's basically what Brazil is to me. It's 1/4 of a movie stretched out to two hours
>inb4 but the excessive, tedious bureaucracy stretching out the whole film is the point! You're meant to see Pryce go mad because of it and feel bad for him
But I don't feel anything for him, it's just the same shit stretched out. I actually feel for Willis in Twelve Monkeys, not Pryce in this
>You were asked to list films with a similiar premise and then listed a bunch that barely/if at all fit the criteria of said premise.
Well my main point was his other works hit those themes and the other stuff I listed was just supplemental.
And backs up my point that Brazil is just 1/4 of a movie, because other movies can incorporate a bureaucratic setting into a wider story. In Brazil it's THE story, and two hours of it is extremely tedious.
>And backs up my point that Brazil is just 1/4 of a movie, because other movies can incorporate a bureaucratic setting into a wider story.
Having backround elements doesnt magically give a movie any more depth to its narrative if they are mostly inconsequential to the themes and plot and not having a larger variety of superflous elements doesn't magically make a film "less" of a film.
>Having backround elements
>not having a larger variety of superflous elements
I'm not talking about background or superflous elements, I'm talking about the opposite: some actual substance beyond the incredibly simple and tedious plot we're given. All that really happens is Pryce has some fantasies to escape this shitty existence, he sort of lives or dreams about them, but it's not enough and he can't escape it in the end. Which is not inherently bad, I can accept a film being extremely simple and relying more on style than plot, but those kind of movies have something more going for them, usually an inherently strong base plot to the story, good acting, a nice love angle, something like that. Brazil tries to go darker by having this pathetic character in Pryce, but I think we're meant to sympathise with him? There's not enough to keep me engaged in the end.
>I'm not talking about background or superflous elements
You are in regards to your supplemental examples of "similar premises" in regards to themes and narrative elements of bureaucracy.
>I'm okay with extremely simple and relying more on style than plot movies
>but only when they have an inherently strong base plot to the story
I hope you understand how moronic and contradictory this sounds.
>You are in regards to your supplemental examples of "similar premises" in regards to themes and narrative elements of bureaucracy.
But those are examples of movies that have substantially different stories to Brazil. My point was they somewhat handle the bureaucratic hellscape concept better because it’s only a small part of a larger story. I’m Brazil it’s the only story, and it’s just not compelling enough for me to carry the entire movie.
And STILL you’re obsessing over some offhand comparisons I made instead of the more obvious ones like Baron Munchauson, Twelve Monkeys and Being John Malcovich
>I hope you understand how moronic and contradictory this sounds.
What is moronic about it? My point is Brazil has no strong base to it. Pryce uses fantasy to cope from a shorty existence and it goes nowhere. It’s extremely weak.
>What is moronic about it? My point is Brazil has no strong base to it.
What is moronic is that you imply you a "style over substsance" movie isn't good if the "substance" doesnt exist/or is subpar despite the whole point of the term being in reference to it ignoring the substance in favor of style as
>The movie is all style and no substance.
which disregarding me disagreeing that there is no substance; the important facet is that the STYLE is very fricking good which is very impoetant in a film that is STYLE over substance.
Style over substance is alright, I have a problem with style and no substance. Take a look at what this guy said,
Akira is style over substance; that's fine and it's a great movie because of it. However, like I pointed out it actually has some/ more substance to it; the shitty bureaucracy of this neo-Japan government is a small part of the bigger story, it's got interesting stuff going on with the biker gangs, a mystery involving the previous Akira explosion and what happened there.
The story takes twists and turns, Tetsuo's is not an A to B transformation like Pryce's descent into insanity is. He's a bit of a loser at first, then gets into the accident, starts developing these powers, lashes out at his friends, decides to go after Akira, then starts getting out of control, accidentally kills his waifu, starts to express fear and remorse about what's happening to him, and eventually ends up in some new universe. There's still so much more going on in a movie universally considered the epitome of style over substance - and that's just Tetsuo's arc, there's still other stuff going on with Kanada and other characters.
In Brazil, Pryce is a bit of a loser in a terrible fascist alternate reality, so he uses fantasy to escape mentally. He continues to fantasise until the borders between reality and fantasy and he goes crazy. The end. No real twists and turns, just a boring and plotted out journey.
This is what I was trying to say here but you didn't seem to get
>I'm okay with extremely simple and relying more on style than plot movies
But you don't seem to understand. A style over substance movie still needs SOME substance, Brazil completely lacks it.
>Eraserhead hits the industrial dystopian theme better
>Akira also does the dystopian bureaucratic future theme but better
>Blade Runner a bit too
Are you just comparing visually similar films that all happen to be tonally bleak? Disregarding the disimilarity between all these films; none of them are hitting the bureaucratic theme to the same degree as Brazil
>Akira also does the dystopian bureaucratic future theme, but better
any theming in akira is surface level, that movie has had a style over substance problem since always. the manga doesn't have that problem
Time bandits waa better
the digits never lie. OP is a zoomie and should stick to breaking bad.
I liked it but will never watch it again. Probably the bleakest film I have seen.
man chases his dreams.
gets crushed, heartbroken and driven out of his mind by a heartless bureaucracy.
it was partialy satire back when it was made but most satire of that time is straight faced reality in this modern clown world
Is this satire? If not, have a nice day OP, so as to not spread your dumb ass genes.
anon at this point im not even sure if youve watched the right version of the movie. you did watch the directors cut right?
what ties the movie together is reality and fantasy intruding on each other
>the way she goes from tomboy to his lovedoll is embarrassing
>She goes from someone who's clearly unlike his fantasy image, to wearing a fricking wig for him, for no reason.
thats where the fantasy starts to 8leed in. as his fantasies 8ecome more and more dominant and fantastic, reality keeps deteriorating. the repair men and the 8andaged woman arent repeated gags. each time reality gets comically worse.
This guy gets it. By the end it is literally so obvious that even the most braindead viewer can get what's going on, but that's also the magic of all of it. It's like watching a skyscraper fall down in slow motion while standing on the front street. At first you can't see that's falling, but after a while you see the rubles and it's unmistakable.
Idk, I watched a version that was two hours and twenty minutes long. Actually I was wondering if I was watching a director's cut throughout because the movie might've been saved if it was shortened.
>thats where the fantasy starts to 8leed in. as his fantasies 8ecome more and more dominant and fantastic, reality keeps deteriorating. the repair men and the 8andaged woman arent repeated gags. each time reality gets comically worse.
True, I guess the idea that every time he was confronted with an even worse scenario he had some kind of fantasy bail him out. But then they imply that Jack's torture is the thing that puts him over the edge and into pure fantasy reality, devaluing the ambiguous state Pryce is in before.
So I guess you could say it's about an utterly pathetic man who relies on fantasy to escape his shitty existence, because there's no path in reality to escape? That's more interesting I guess.
One of the best British movies of all time.
What is autism like?
>do people actually like it?
yes, i liked it maybe because i dont describe it like you do.
This would definitely be in my top ten list of movies people think they are smart for watching list
Not OP here, and I quite like Brazil and have rewatched it recently.
How does the love story make sense? It seems awfully forced and like the girl gets turned into a completely different character randomly. She goes from a cynical busy pseudo lesbian to a damsel because Sam wont stop rabidly chasing her?
have you watched the ending?
You mean where he gets driven to insanity AFTER the sex scene? Yeah
Them having sex objectively happened, it's not fantasy. They tell him that she's dead when he's imprisoned, implying they were absolutely together before they were captured.
Are you sure you're telling apart the fantasy from the reality scenes?
Was him having sex with the girl fantasy?
you've never had a woman love you before? SAD!
gilliam is a hack, except for that movie
It's comfy and has a lot of soul. Setting is a good deconstruction of Britain at the time. Main character is relatable. Great sets and cinematography. Unique humor that has yet to be recreated. I watched it years and years ago this is just off the top of my head. Literally how can you not like this movie are you an npc with a 10 minute attention span?
>Unique humor that has yet to be recreated
Literally watch any Monty Python skit or Terry Gilliam movie and you'll see the same humour, but better
if things shouldnt exist "because x did it objectively better" then this thread should be deleted because you havent said anything original or insightful in any way.
OK let's say that Pryce seeing Jill as his fantasy woman at the end was more fantasy that didn't actually happen.
But the sex objectively did happen because when he's captured they say that Jill died as well, meaning she was there (unless he imagined this part, but I don't think he ever imagines any of the bad shit that happens to him, his fantasies are usually coping mechanisms for the bad shit).
So did he have sex with dyke-Jill and then imagined her as fantasy-Jill? So Pryce's infatuation with her is pure coping and he actually has no interest in her really.
To me that is a part of Pryce's pathetic character and a nice concept, that he's only interested in make believe to escape his life, and not really interested in the true Jill. But then why would Jill go along with it? Why would she have sex with this pathetic pencil-pusher who just wants to live vicariously through him? She actually has a life and a job (which Pryce ruins), she seems to care about her neighbours and community, and actively fends Pryce off when he pursues her. What changes?
my dad loves it but its looks like shit
wtf was his problem?
just following orders
he was a company man
So to sum up essentially everything in the thread
>God-Tier practial effects and sets
>decent framing and cinemotagrapgy coinciding with above element resulting in a visual style and setting that oozes personality
Already with these two you have a movie people would love for visuals alone
>heavy emphasis of fantasy vs reality degrdation
>monty python dry humor skits that constantly critique bureaucracy which further emphazises above dreamlike nature which together makes a perfect narrative style to coincide with visual
So now you have a film that is tonally consistent with both key elements of film that are both (subjectively) done well complenting each other with great success. To top it all off
>basic plot that is easy to follow with enough comedy and action to provide spice and general entertainment to the film
This is fair, I guess that makes the movie for most people but it wasn't enough for me.
Yes. It's a great movie. Try not having such a shitty taste
Also, here's your (You)
You sound like a pretentious piece of shit honestly. You have the most basic, baby brained critiques and you frame it like youre saying anything of note or value. Youre not novel, youre not interesting, all of this was said when the movie was new. might as well delete thread.
>Youre not novel, youre not interesting, all of this was said when the movie was new.
Yes because I only just watched it any didn't know anything about it before. I'm not pretending otherwise.
Sorry if I didn't read essays of criticism about it before making this thread.
at least youre sorry. Just lurk more itll be ok.
checked this movie out from the library back in the day as a kid, kind of changed my worldview. my dad worked in a big corp similar to the bureaucratic agencies you see in the movie and the job basically ate him up and the family imploded. that's what it reminds me of anyway. these megalithic structures eat people up and you either become jack lint who is a sociopath tool of the system or you become sam lowry. broken by the system.
it's brave new world done right (the book sucked in comparison)
This thread is what happens when a zoomer tries to watch a film instead of a tik tok video.
They're the most incompetent generation ever birthed and I feel bad for them up until I see their absolute spiritual and aesthetic moronation.
Why would someone make a post like this? Poor sportsmanship.
You sound like a government wagie
I felt like Brazil was basically 1984 with less cartoonish heavy-handedness about society (and "Big Brother", which is kind of a stupid concept at least as portrayed in media) and more what happens if you take a person in that reality who's not trying to be some revolutionary but rather just an office drone with an imagination.
>This movie is awful
thats the final straw
frick nu/tv/
and frick you OP you brainlet phoneposting homosexual
This. I come to this thread expecting the replies to rightfully call out OP as a attentionlet moron, only to find most of them are actually agreeing with him!
It’s pretty much all me and nobody is actually arguing the merits of any of my arguments.
It’s pretty much “you are a zoomer” (I’m not) or “you like capeshit” (I don’t, and I like David Lynch movies if that knowledge satisfies the pseud wannabes in here) or “this movie is the greatest of all time. Why? Because it is moron”
I notice pretty much no one is arguing the merits of Jill’s character in here or intricacies of the plot, probably because nobody remembers them. The movie is all style and no substance.
Did Terry Gilliam run over your dog or something? Maybe if you didn't launch out of the gate claiming the movie was "awful," you would get more thoughtful replies. Your entire criticism seems to be that it's boring (which is what zoombies say about any movie pre-2000), the plot is "generic" (lol, what?), and the principal actor wasn't good (ok, i guess that's a valid criticism... but not every film puts the acting front-and-center). You say the special effects are nice but "don't contribute anything." What does that even mean? Much of the appeal of the film is in the unique retro-futurist aesthetics and worldbuilding.
>Maybe if you didn't launch out of the gate claiming the movie was "awful," you would get more thoughtful replies.
Sorry, did I hurt your feelings?
>Your entire criticism seems to be that it's boring (which is what zoombies say about any movie pre-2000)
Oh sorry reverent boomer, I didn't realise there wasn't a single boring movie made before 2000.
Maybe give me the benefit of the doubt and believe that holding a contrarian opinion doesn't make me a fricking zoomer?
>the plot is "generic" (lol, what?)
It fricking is lmao. Man is stuck in a dead end job in a shitty bureaucratic environment, uses fantasy to cope, begins living out fantasies which flies against the law, reality and fantasy collide until he turns insane. Pretty generic story.
>nd the principal actor wasn't good (ok, i guess that's a valid criticism... but not every film puts the acting front-and-center)
Fair point except this movie is almost entirely about Pryce. You'd expect a good performance when the movie revolves around this one guy. Jill is also the only other character that seems to have a heart or a brain and she's not great either, I just read Gillian even cut some of her scenes because even he didn't like her performance. Then there's Michael Palin there for Michael Palin style comedy, and Robert de Niro who's good but barely in it.
>Much of the appeal of the film is in the unique retro-futurist aesthetics and worldbuilding.
I guess that's fair, but all that stuff without a story backing it is boring to me, it's the Avatar movie.
>terrorist bombs restaurant
>waiters make a fuss
>put up a partition to hide the carnage and corpses
>other diners continue eating and carry on
absolute kino
shit movie
BRAAAAAAZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL
WHERE HEARTS WERE ENTERTAINING JUUUUUUUUUNE