Q: In 1594 in Brazil, the Tupinambas Indians are friends of the Frenches and their enemies are the Tupiniquins, friends of the Portugueses. A Frenchman (Arduino Colassanti) is captured by the Tupinambas, and in spite of his trial to convince them that he is French, they believe he is Portuguese. The Frenchman becomes their slave, and maritally lives with Seboipepe (Ana Maria Magalhaes). Later, he uses powder in the cannons that the Portuguese left behind to defeat the Tupiniquins in a battle. In order to celebrate the victory, the Indians decide to eat him.

"Como Era Gostoso o Meu Frances" is another great low budget movie of the great Brazilian director Nelson Pereira dos Santos. The screenplay is very original and the story is spoken in Tupi. The film is shot using natural light most of the time and is very realistic. The actors and actresses perform naked and Ana Maria Magalhaes is magnificent, showing a wonderful body and giving a stunning performance. The sound is produced by the Brazilian musician Ze Rodrix. This movie shows the beginning of the exploitation of my country by Europeans, focusing in the Portuguese and French at that time, trading with the Indians and exchanging combs and mirrors by our natural resources. This movie was awarded in the national festivals, such as the 1971 Brazilian Cinema Festival of Brasilia (Festival de Brazilia do Cinema Brasileiro) with Best Screenplay (Nelson Pereira dos Santos), Best Dialog (Nelson Pereira dos Santos and Humberto Mauro) and Best Cenograph (Regis Monteiro); Art Critics Association of Sao Paulo (Associacao Paulista dos Criticos de Arte), with best Revelation of the Year (Ana Maria Magalhaes) and some other prizes. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Como Era Gostoso o Meu Frances" ("How Tasty Was My Frenchman")
A: positive
Q: I liked the movie, first of all because it told an interesting story, but the story as told in the movie felt like it was condensed from a much-longer story. Since the book is over 400 pages, that makes sense. It spans a time period from the 1920s to the 1970s, in a fictional South American country, also a lot to fit into the time available. I think it would have been much better as a six-hour mini-series than it turned out as a 140-minute movie.

Even though it's rushed, the story doesn't skip so much that it gets confusing. What is told is told fairly well. One fault is that Clara's supernatural powers appear inconsistently; either they should have appeared more evenly through the course of the movie, or they should have been left out. Two more faults (which could be spoilers): Esteban's eventual return to goodness happens somewhat too suddenly, and Ferula's curse seems to wear off, even though the tone of the story suggests that it should endure forever.

The acting is excellent. Glenn Close, as the tormented spinster Ferula, is outstanding. Jeremy Irons, as the brutal self-made rich man, is also excellent. Meryl Streep, as the main character Clara, is great, although she's often even better than she was in this movie. There were many well-performed smaller roles too. The biggest fault is that the movie seemed to lack a dialect coach; each actor seemed to speak in a different sort of accent.
A: positive
Q: Tweaked a little bit, 'Nothing' could be a children's film. It's a very clever concept, touches upon some interesting metaphysical themes, and goes against pretty much every Hollywood convention you can think of...what goes against everything more than, literally, "nothing"? Nothing is the story of two friends who wish the world away when everything goes wrong with their lives. All that's left is what they don't hate, and a big empty white space. It's hard to focus a story on just two actors for the majority of your film, especially without any cuts to anything going on outside the plot. It focuses on pretty much one subject, but that's prime Vincenzo Natali territory. If you've seen 'Cube', you know already that he tends to like that type of situation. The "nothing" in this movie is apparently infinite space, but Natali somehow manages to make it somewhat claustrophobic, if only because there's literally nothing else, and nowhere else to go. The actors sell it, although you can tell these guys are friends anyway. Two actors from 'Cube' return here (Worth and Kazan), but are entirely different characters. They change throughout the story, and while they're not the strongest actors in the world, they're at least believable.

The reason I say this could be a children's film under the right tweaks, is because aside from a few f-bombs and a somewhat unnecessary bloody dream sequence, the whimsical and often silly feel of this movie could very much be digested easily by kids. So I find it an odd choice that the writers decided to add some crass language and a small amount of gore, especially considering there isn't very much of it. This could've gotten a PG rating easily had they simply cut a few things out and changed a little dialogue. There is very little objectionable about this film, but just enough to keep parents from wanting their kids to see it. I only say that's a shame because not because I support censorship, but because that may have been the only thing preventing this movie from having wider exposure.

At any rate, this is a reasonably entertaining film, albeit with a few dragged-out scenes. But for literally being about nothing, and focused entirely on two characters and their interactions with absolutely nothing, they do a surprisingly good job for an independent film.
A: positive