Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!cuae2!ltuxa!we53!wucs!wucec2!ph
From: ph@wucec2.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Brazil  (the movie)
Message-ID: <1459@wucec2.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Mar-86 13:35:22 EST
Article-I.D.: wucec2.1459
Posted: Sat Mar  8 13:35:22 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Mar-86 21:22:30 EST
References: <213@mrstve.UUCP> <274@pilchuckDataio.UUCP>
Reply-To: ph@wucec2.UUCP (Paul Hahn)
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis
Lines: 49

In article <274@pilchuckDataio.UUCP> ingrid@pilchuckDataio.UUCP (the Real Swede) writes:
>>	I would like to know if anyone else saw this movie.  What did
>>	you think?  How on earth did the L.A. (some newspaper) nominate
>>	it for BEST PICTURE?  Did anyone understand it?  Would narcotics
>>	have helped?  Was this supposed to be a spoof of "1984" or was
>>	it supposed to be serious?
>
>	Oh yay. FINALLY someone else appears who disliked the movie as
>	much as I. Yes, I think heavy drugs would have helped. Then I at
>	least could have hallucinated some semblance of a plot. I had to
>	go out and ingest multiple beers after the movie in order to
>	wash its terrible memory away. Yuck ick boring stupid blah.
>	
>	This is one of those movies destined to be a cult classic. Kinda
>	reminds me of the children's story, "The Emporor's New Clothes."
>	In that story, the Emporer walks down the street clad only in
>	his birthday suit, but no one says anything.  They're all
>	chicken to admit what they believe to be true--because no one
>	else will say the guy's stark naked. I think A LOT of people
>	think this movie sucks, but are afraid to say anything because
>	the movie won the L.A. critics' award. Hell, what do L.A.
>	critics know, anyway....! Feel free to express your opinion--I
>	think there's a lot of folks out there who feel the way you and
>	I do...

	    Well, I can understand your not liking it; as previous
	posters have said, BRAZIL is not for everyone.  But some of your
	comments disturb me a little.  There IS a plot, a moderately
	involved and eventful one as I recall, for example.  And while
	the EmpEror's new clothes were fairly easily demonstrated to be
	fanciful, I don't think it's quite fair to imply that it's just
	as easy to see that this is a bad movie, if only one would stop
	letting the L.A. critics pull the wool over one's eyes.  After
	all, there must be SOMETHING there that them durn critics like;
	would it be so difficult to simply admit that whatever it was
	wasn't for you?
	    I think once again, as was recently the case in
	net.sf-lovers during the debate over Gene Wolfe's BOOK OF THE
	NEW SUN, it is time for us all to remember that we all have
	different likes and dislikes, and to try not to be so hasty to
	condemn as absolutely bad something we don't happen to like.
	At least without anything particularly concrete to back up our
	opinion.
						--pH
/*
 *	    "Care for a little necrophilia?"
 */
	P.S. Why use drugs to try to produce a sensation the movie is
	already giving you?