Quick recap: A poet is somehow responsible for two leaders getting elected but he really sucks at choosing anyone decent.

MRW the movie is over

Fun (?) fact: I spent the entirety of the film confused why Brazil was called Eldorado. Come to find out, this movie is a thinly veiled story about a real political mess and about the only thing that was changed were names. In other words, Eldorado is fake.

Thoughts and Observations:

I’m not going to pretend I understood a fraction of this movie. Even at the end I couldn’t tell you if anyone was ‘good’ or had the best intentions because everyone seemed to suck. The main character is Paulo Martins, a jaded journalist who somehow has a lot of influence. At first he supports the candidate that says he is for the people- that is until the people protest and many are killed. Oops! So Martins does a bunch of stuff that I don’t understand and somehow the conservative elite jerk wins the election and that’s somehow even worse than the previous guy who killed all those people.

Now, if I was Brazilian I might have related more to this movie but since I had no context for the time period, it was so hard to keep up with what was going on. I couldn’t even nail who Martins was sleeping with (turns out he shared a girl with another corrupt guy). I suppose the lesson is that in politics everyone sucks and is not to be trusted. And maybe it’s best to just stay out of the race altogether. But what I took from it is that, as always, it is the people that get screwed over in the end and they should be the ones to hold all the power.

Stylistically, this movie looked more like a French avant-garde film than political thriller. There are straightforward scenes cut with a couple dancing and breaking glass and long shots of a man twirling around with a gun. I’m sure it was all symbolism but as referenced above, I couldn’t even figure out that Eldorado wasn’t real so I don’t know how the director expected me to understand the point of the guy dragging around a black flag and a cross.

Watchability score: 2/5, only because it’s a pretty film

Up next: Naked Gun

Quick recap: A selfish jerk kidnaps his disabled brother for money.

Fun (?) fact: It is in fact true that Qantas airlines has never had a commercial flight crash from 1921-today.

Thoughts and observations:

• Director Barry Levinson did a great job painting Charlie (Tom Cruise) as the worst human being alive because I still believed it at the end of the film. He has to dress like that AND sale rare cars? You’ve gone too far, Levinson.

• I was never able to fully appreciate Charlie and Raymond’s relationship mainly because it began when one brother kidnapped the other. I don’t care how many juice boxes you give, you can’t come back from that.
• I’ll go ahead and skip to the ending to point out that ‘ I no longer yell at my disabled brother’ is NOT growth.
• Why did this movie annoy me so much? I think it’s because Charlie tried to make the case that the group home was an inappropriate choice for Raymond with little to no facts. He barged in and assumed he could do a better job even though he had never heard of the term ‘autism’ before. He might have sweet memories of his brother when the two were younger but that doesn’t mean you will be a better caretaker.
• And no, Charlie, using your brother to win money is not funny or a great bonding moment.
• I’m not really sure what the lesson was here. Be nice to the Autistic because they may be worth a lot of money? No, you can’t keep your Autistic brother as a pet?
• Dustin Hoffman did a phenomenal job so I won’t give this movie one star, even though I’d really like to. I think it goes hand in hand with my distaste for Inspiration Porn. The disabled do not exist as a way for you to feel good about yourself. They are not brave or strong. They are real people with real struggles and deserve human dignity. That’ what Rain Man felt like, one long Good Morning America segment about a brother being just a little less of a jerk to his brother with Autism.

Final review: 2/5 only because of Dustin Hoffman

Up next: The Last Picture Show

Quick recap: A group of farmers get together to buy a tractor which makes the landowners angry and then BOOM! Communism is formed.

Sunflowers are the gateway flower to other governments

Fun (?) fact: There’s a deleted scene where the villagers all gather and pee on the engine of the overheated tractor. It’s supposed to represent communism of course, but people thought the symbolism was a little heavy-handed.

Why yes, I do in fact have the score from Fiddler on the Roof stuck in my head now

Thoughts and Observations:

• From what I can gather, the issue at hand is that these kulaks (landowners) realize that if they work together and share, they can be much more profitable. The other landowners decide against it and then get angry when collectivism works. Point: Communism
• But I think at one point the villagers knocked down the resistant landowners’ fences, which just isn’t very nice. Point: Capitalism 
• The landowners retaliate by having one of them murder the guy who bought the tractor. Point: Communism
• The guy that was murdered was named Basil and he did this REALLY elaborate dance to show it to the angry landowners. Point: Capitalism
• Basil’s father announces he is Atheist because of the murder and denies the priest the opportunity to officiate the funeral. Instead the villagers will sing songs about farm life and working. Point: Capitalism because that sounds boring as hell
• The movie was very confusing because even the happy scenes were filled with ominous, angry music, like when the villagers used the tractor. I spent about 10 minutes thinking the tractor was evil because of the sound cues. Point: Capitalism, I guess.

Was title said in film?

Probably. The movie is silent with only a few cue cards so I’m sure it was muttered at some point, considering they are working the earth.

Final review: 2/5  capitalism wins again! But only slightly because if Communism had peppier music, I would’ve been all in.

Up next: The Ten Commandments