Brazil

Was ist von diesem Film zu halten? Das erste, was ins Auge sticht, sind das absolut atemberaubende Design und die neuartige Visualisierung von Gilliams Welt. Erst danach kommen eine sehr seltsame Geschichte und ein sehr seltsames Ende, bei dem man denkt, dass man Hilfsmittel nehmen muss, um es zu durchschauen. Brazil ist jedoch ein klassischer Film mit Schwanz, so dass ich ihn erst nach längerer Zeit als faszinierend empfand und er einen starken Nachhall in mir hinterließ. Ich habe nicht verstanden warum, aber ich mochte diese visuell fesselnde Darstellung der menschlichen Zivilisation trotzdem (liegt es an mir, oder sind da wirklich ein bisschen Kafka und ein bisschen Orwell?). Und in gewisser Weise kann Brazil als eine Fortsetzung des bizarren schwarzen Humors von Monty Python gesehen werden... (26.01.2004)

Accepting Terry Gilliam as a non-python creator occasionally causes me problems, but with Brazil, he hit my taste precisely. Although at times it is too far from any existing film schemes, in this case, it is exactly his strongest weapon. Jonathan Pryce plays a perfectly identifiable character, a positive and, in a sense, tragic hero, isolated in a mad world. The world of this future is a nest of evil, calculating, or conversely, too naive characters, and its rules are merciless. The pressure of the system is most noticeable on Jack, played by Michael Palin. Who would have thought that this perpetually smiling Monty Python could be such a slimy snake? Thanks to his character, the pervasive social criticism is almost brutal. (24.09.2007)

The story of this film is now almost a legend in the film industry. The producers were so disgusted and frightened by the final version that they didn't want to release it for wider distribution, and if they did, it would be a heavily edited version. They calculated that it would be a flop (which was eventually confirmed) and didn't want to waste money on advertising. Gilliam began to fight for its release and gained the support of publicists and critics. Even over time, they more or less regularly include Brazil in the top ten best films of all time. John Cleese of Monty Python referred to Gilliam as a passionate megalomaniac who easily succumbs to his creative visions and needs to be kept under control. In Brazil, the producers obviously failed to do so, and thus a truly unique and visually remarkable, but not entirely digestible work was created from the audience's point of view. I prefer Twelve Monkeys, which is more straightforward and easier to consume. In Brazil, Gilliam occasionally succumbs to mannerisms and plays with visual details and atmosphere at the expense of the whole. The performances of the actors and the aforementioned visual aspect are top-notch, so giving it an overall impression of 90% is appropriate. The casting is interesting, as it gave unconventional roles to actors such as Robert De Niro and Michael Palin. Brazil is definitely a film worth seeing, regardless of what we think of Gilliam's uncompromising nature. (11.10.2007)

A hallucinogenic satire of 1984 meets the biggest middle finger to the Christmas spirit in the history of cinema. And it’s fun, but also has interpretive challenges, especially in the depressive ending. So many ideas in one film – whether purely visual, the staging (sci-fi like Metropolis + grotesque irony in the style of Monty Python) or themes - is not something we see very often. I should give it 5*, but at times that frantic movement didn’t feel fully organised and meaningful. 85% (21.12.2020)

Producers must be getting stomach ulcers from Terry "here-you-have-it-and-take-it-as-you-want" Gilliam. For most viewers, Brazil will probably be a difficult film to digest. A visually immensely striking metaphor that was a flop with the general public but went down in film history as an original piece of work. It would have made Franz Kafka happy. And maybe George Orwell, too :) (13.04.2003)