GTeixeira
Joined May 2011
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews98
GTeixeira's rating
Just like the German 'Der Untergang' ('Downfall') chronicled the last days of Hitler's life, 'Getúlio' follows the same pattern: it chronicles the last days of Brazilian's controversial/beloved president/dictator Getúlio Vargas, from the Tonelero street attempt on the life of Carlos Lacerda (a well known opponent of Vargas), the unraveling of the case leading to those closest to Getúlio, the political and public pressure resulted from it all, and eventually to his suicide 19 days later, on August 24, 1954.
The film is very well made, beautifully shot, and above all authentic-looking. It was all shot on location, the beautiful Palácio do Catete, and with much care for the characters to look as accurate as possible. It recreates the feeling of the Brazilian 50's nicely as if following a very detailed history lesson.
As any character-focused film, 'Getúlio' depends on its lead actor: Tony Ramos, the actor chosen to portray Getúlio Vargas, is surprisingly good. He is very well-known and beloved by the Brazilian public for his roles in television series/soap operas; while a bad choice as far as looks are concerned (even after the extensive preparation, he does not look much like Vargas), he has the charisma and talent for the job. Vargas was one of the (if not THE) most liked figures of Brazilian history (the 'Father of the Poor', he was called); since the film deals with his latter life, his image already established, it was ideal for him to be played by someone the public would know and could immediately relate to (ie.: Tony Ramos). It helps that he is also a talented actor, and makes the emotional distress Vargas went through in his last days look very real.
The rest of the cast is also very good. Thiago Justino does a great job as Vargas' security chief and right-hand man, Gregório Fortunato; and the actors portraying Varga's family feel like such, with Drica Moraes in special doing a great job as Vargas' daughter. Alexandre Borges looks like Carlos Lacerda, and plays him well enough, but he couldn't achieve the power of Lacerda's speeches; not that he could be blamed for it, though.
Those who know Brazilian history will also like to see other important figures of the time being portrayed as well. Figures like Nereu Ramos, Café Filho, Tancredo Neves, and Afonso Arinos are all very well represented, though their relatively small roles in the film are almost like cameos (Arinos, in special, is briefly shown doing his amazing speech in Congress calling for Vargas' resignation). It is a minor point, but something history buffs might enjoy.
The film is well paced and developed, trying to play like a political thriller and doing the job well enough. It is very historically accurate, avoiding hinting towards the conspiracy theory involving the Tonelero street attack and instead sticking with the historical facts. Like 'Der Untergang', it focuses a lot on the subject's (here, Vargas') feelings and actions in the eminence of his downfall; it overtly humanizes, making him look like an innocent victim of circumstance and overall siding with him rather than making an impartial biopic.
So, while having a bit of bias (though then again, an unbiased biography has never been made), 'Getúlio' is nonetheless a rare good Brazilian picture and a tribute to one of Brazil's greatest historical figures. Because, love him or hate him, Vargas is a very interesting subject and important historical figure. As he himself said, in his suicide note:
"Serenely, I take my first step on the road to eternity. I leave life to enter history."
The film is very well made, beautifully shot, and above all authentic-looking. It was all shot on location, the beautiful Palácio do Catete, and with much care for the characters to look as accurate as possible. It recreates the feeling of the Brazilian 50's nicely as if following a very detailed history lesson.
As any character-focused film, 'Getúlio' depends on its lead actor: Tony Ramos, the actor chosen to portray Getúlio Vargas, is surprisingly good. He is very well-known and beloved by the Brazilian public for his roles in television series/soap operas; while a bad choice as far as looks are concerned (even after the extensive preparation, he does not look much like Vargas), he has the charisma and talent for the job. Vargas was one of the (if not THE) most liked figures of Brazilian history (the 'Father of the Poor', he was called); since the film deals with his latter life, his image already established, it was ideal for him to be played by someone the public would know and could immediately relate to (ie.: Tony Ramos). It helps that he is also a talented actor, and makes the emotional distress Vargas went through in his last days look very real.
The rest of the cast is also very good. Thiago Justino does a great job as Vargas' security chief and right-hand man, Gregório Fortunato; and the actors portraying Varga's family feel like such, with Drica Moraes in special doing a great job as Vargas' daughter. Alexandre Borges looks like Carlos Lacerda, and plays him well enough, but he couldn't achieve the power of Lacerda's speeches; not that he could be blamed for it, though.
Those who know Brazilian history will also like to see other important figures of the time being portrayed as well. Figures like Nereu Ramos, Café Filho, Tancredo Neves, and Afonso Arinos are all very well represented, though their relatively small roles in the film are almost like cameos (Arinos, in special, is briefly shown doing his amazing speech in Congress calling for Vargas' resignation). It is a minor point, but something history buffs might enjoy.
The film is well paced and developed, trying to play like a political thriller and doing the job well enough. It is very historically accurate, avoiding hinting towards the conspiracy theory involving the Tonelero street attack and instead sticking with the historical facts. Like 'Der Untergang', it focuses a lot on the subject's (here, Vargas') feelings and actions in the eminence of his downfall; it overtly humanizes, making him look like an innocent victim of circumstance and overall siding with him rather than making an impartial biopic.
So, while having a bit of bias (though then again, an unbiased biography has never been made), 'Getúlio' is nonetheless a rare good Brazilian picture and a tribute to one of Brazil's greatest historical figures. Because, love him or hate him, Vargas is a very interesting subject and important historical figure. As he himself said, in his suicide note:
"Serenely, I take my first step on the road to eternity. I leave life to enter history."
Simply put, a biopic about John Forbes Nash Jr., a mathematical genius who went on to win a Nobel Prize after years battling his many problems, including his schizophrenia.
'A Beautiful Mind' is good, that much I'm not questioning. It is very engrossing, at times moving more like a thriller than a drama; likewise, the emotion actually feels natural and effective, without the usual sappiness of Hollywood dramas. The acting is superb: Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly shine here, and deserved the awards that year. Others who shone in a very good cast included Ed Harris, Christopher Plummer and Paul Bettany.
My complaint comes in that this is supposed to be a biography of John Nash; however, it is anything but. This is Hollywood sugar-coating at its finest: it shows Nash as a troubled individual, having to fight against his illness and overcome his own shy nature to succeed; it completes ignores his more thornier history and changes it all to make him an impossibly sympathetic person.
They flat out make things up as they go for the sake of turning this into your typical 'underdog fighting against all odds', formulaic and not unlike 'Rocky' or 'Good Will Hunting' (those other two, though, do not attempt to disguise themselves under the cover of a true story).
This is partially fault of Nash himself, who refused to let a biopic of him unless they took out all the 'shadier' aspects of his life, and partially of screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, who extensively makes use of emotion over actual storytelling to win over his audiences in pretty much every film he does (I know what to expect when I see his name on a film, and it is never to expect a great one).
In the end 'A Beautiful Mind' is a very good film, with a great cast, and a rare one which manages to make its emotional moments effective without melodrama or cheesiness; even the more cheesy moments, like Nash's 'Nobel Prize speech' (yet another non-truth), work better here than they usually. On the other hand, being labeled as a 'true story' or as a biopic is not only misleading, but distracting for those who know Nash's real (and far more interesting) story.
I never understood Hollywood when it comes to their sugarcoated biopics. If they are going to change and make things up so his lifestory can support the theme they want to, why still insist with the 'true story' label? Just to fool the viewers/critics?
'A Beautiful Mind' is good, that much I'm not questioning. It is very engrossing, at times moving more like a thriller than a drama; likewise, the emotion actually feels natural and effective, without the usual sappiness of Hollywood dramas. The acting is superb: Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly shine here, and deserved the awards that year. Others who shone in a very good cast included Ed Harris, Christopher Plummer and Paul Bettany.
My complaint comes in that this is supposed to be a biography of John Nash; however, it is anything but. This is Hollywood sugar-coating at its finest: it shows Nash as a troubled individual, having to fight against his illness and overcome his own shy nature to succeed; it completes ignores his more thornier history and changes it all to make him an impossibly sympathetic person.
They flat out make things up as they go for the sake of turning this into your typical 'underdog fighting against all odds', formulaic and not unlike 'Rocky' or 'Good Will Hunting' (those other two, though, do not attempt to disguise themselves under the cover of a true story).
This is partially fault of Nash himself, who refused to let a biopic of him unless they took out all the 'shadier' aspects of his life, and partially of screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, who extensively makes use of emotion over actual storytelling to win over his audiences in pretty much every film he does (I know what to expect when I see his name on a film, and it is never to expect a great one).
In the end 'A Beautiful Mind' is a very good film, with a great cast, and a rare one which manages to make its emotional moments effective without melodrama or cheesiness; even the more cheesy moments, like Nash's 'Nobel Prize speech' (yet another non-truth), work better here than they usually. On the other hand, being labeled as a 'true story' or as a biopic is not only misleading, but distracting for those who know Nash's real (and far more interesting) story.
I never understood Hollywood when it comes to their sugarcoated biopics. If they are going to change and make things up so his lifestory can support the theme they want to, why still insist with the 'true story' label? Just to fool the viewers/critics?
Lawyer Carly Whitten (Cameron Diaz) ends up discovering her seemingly-perfect boyfriend is married; yet, she ends up forming a strange friendship with the wife, Kate (Leslie Mann). As they find out and end joined by yet another affair, Amber (Kate Upton), the unlikely trio plot a revenge against the cheater while also uncovering his many lies.
A very silly sitcom-styled comedy, which tried to sell itself through its stars (Diaz, Mann and Upton), but that's it. It offers nothing special, nothing that hasn't been done thousands of time again and again; even worse, it does all that badly. The movie picks up a bit towards the end, but only barely.
The characters are awful. Mann's is irritating and even obnoxious at times, and terribly inconsistent at all others, which her terrible ('quirky') delivery and overacting makes almost unbearable; meanwhile, Diaz is always overly cold and bored-looking, completely flat in her delivery. In special, their early interactions (with Diaz reciting her lines rather than acting and Mann overdoing hers) are particularly bad.
The entire first hour or so is terrible, a 1 rating, but not only thanks to them. Nothing interesting happens; whichever amusing situations Cassavetes/Stack attempted end up ridiculous by not only the fact we have seen it all done before, but also because these are situations usually geared towards teen characters. Seeing Mann and Diaz in their scene at Diaz's apartment is cringe-worthy.
On the other hand, Kate Upton is incredible to look at, which is already a great addition, and while quite amateurish she has a cuteness that make her likable; she does the ditzy blonde stereotype quite well, though from what I've seen of her she seems to be a bit like that in real life too. The movie picks up a bit after she arrives and the group band together to get back at the guy, with some of the revenge bits being quite amusing but, even then, nothing memorable.
A little corporate-scamming plot is added near the end; just a weak attempt to make the movie appear a little more 'serious' (i.e.: pretentious). Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau, who plays the cheating guy, is good, as is Don Johnson in what little screen time he has. There are a few chuckle-worthy moments, but no real 'laugh out loud' ones, to the point they end up falling back on bathroom/poop jokes to elicit a reaction.
Overall, 'The Other Woman' is just another typical chick-flick comedy, the kind you go to see already knowing it will be a silly pastime and far from memorable. But then again, this kind of film has its intended audience; I'm just not part of it.
A very silly sitcom-styled comedy, which tried to sell itself through its stars (Diaz, Mann and Upton), but that's it. It offers nothing special, nothing that hasn't been done thousands of time again and again; even worse, it does all that badly. The movie picks up a bit towards the end, but only barely.
The characters are awful. Mann's is irritating and even obnoxious at times, and terribly inconsistent at all others, which her terrible ('quirky') delivery and overacting makes almost unbearable; meanwhile, Diaz is always overly cold and bored-looking, completely flat in her delivery. In special, their early interactions (with Diaz reciting her lines rather than acting and Mann overdoing hers) are particularly bad.
The entire first hour or so is terrible, a 1 rating, but not only thanks to them. Nothing interesting happens; whichever amusing situations Cassavetes/Stack attempted end up ridiculous by not only the fact we have seen it all done before, but also because these are situations usually geared towards teen characters. Seeing Mann and Diaz in their scene at Diaz's apartment is cringe-worthy.
On the other hand, Kate Upton is incredible to look at, which is already a great addition, and while quite amateurish she has a cuteness that make her likable; she does the ditzy blonde stereotype quite well, though from what I've seen of her she seems to be a bit like that in real life too. The movie picks up a bit after she arrives and the group band together to get back at the guy, with some of the revenge bits being quite amusing but, even then, nothing memorable.
A little corporate-scamming plot is added near the end; just a weak attempt to make the movie appear a little more 'serious' (i.e.: pretentious). Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau, who plays the cheating guy, is good, as is Don Johnson in what little screen time he has. There are a few chuckle-worthy moments, but no real 'laugh out loud' ones, to the point they end up falling back on bathroom/poop jokes to elicit a reaction.
Overall, 'The Other Woman' is just another typical chick-flick comedy, the kind you go to see already knowing it will be a silly pastime and far from memorable. But then again, this kind of film has its intended audience; I'm just not part of it.