"Sargento Getúlio ("Sergeant Getúlio") based on the classic book from Brazilian literature is translated to the screen in this poorly written film where while some ideas are greatly presented, others are randomly there to make you feel ashamed of seeing such thing.
Lima Duarte plays the title character, a man who received the order of taking a political prisoner from one city to another, crossing different Northeast states. Halfway through his course, he's ordered to let go the prisoner but since this message was delivered by a simple messenger rather than the boss himself he decides not to release the man and continue his way. No matter the consequences he'll finish his mission even if he have to kill for it, even people who are on his side.
When the movie deals with the duality between obstinacy and stubbornness it becomes a big picture with some unique qualities. But there's moments and things that are so unrealistically presented that the film becomes false, with too little credibility. The main character is an uneducated man, very simple, and who uses of some brutality to deal with his prisoner yet we are testimonies of some of the most brilliant and eloquent streams of consciousness ever given to such character, to the point of quoting Hamlet (unbelievably stolen and ripped off, Getúlio says the 'To be or not to be' quote but the script changed its context). His inner thoughts couldn't match that type of figure. In a book, I might believe him doing all of this, depending on how the author described him but what I saw in the picture was implausible. Not to mention that this man seems to be losing his mind ranting strange things all the time.
And no heroes? No villains? To whom we root for? The prisoner is way too passive, we barely hear him saying something and he's a major character that needed more screen time, we should know more about him and his involvement in this political rivalry. Amaro, Getúlio's friend who joins him on the trip is a nice character, has some funny lines, a very good companion to the main character. So many unexplained things that I won't even bother quoting them all.
I know I was a little bit distant from the film, head going over other thoughts but it was the film's fault, it loses itself into various tedious and long moments that doesn't add anything to us. And the ending? Why leave it open? João Ubaldo Ribeiro's book gives an ending, complete but the film's writer decided not to. Why?
The acting makes this worth while, all actors are good and deserve some praise for their works here but the rest is not good enough. Uninspired direction, the already mentioned weak script, awful cinematography, and an editing sometimes innovative.
Stubborness of me or persistence, cal it what you want but I stick to the end. Lesson learned here: the distinction between both are very thin and practically invisible. To each his own. 5/10
Lima Duarte plays the title character, a man who received the order of taking a political prisoner from one city to another, crossing different Northeast states. Halfway through his course, he's ordered to let go the prisoner but since this message was delivered by a simple messenger rather than the boss himself he decides not to release the man and continue his way. No matter the consequences he'll finish his mission even if he have to kill for it, even people who are on his side.
When the movie deals with the duality between obstinacy and stubbornness it becomes a big picture with some unique qualities. But there's moments and things that are so unrealistically presented that the film becomes false, with too little credibility. The main character is an uneducated man, very simple, and who uses of some brutality to deal with his prisoner yet we are testimonies of some of the most brilliant and eloquent streams of consciousness ever given to such character, to the point of quoting Hamlet (unbelievably stolen and ripped off, Getúlio says the 'To be or not to be' quote but the script changed its context). His inner thoughts couldn't match that type of figure. In a book, I might believe him doing all of this, depending on how the author described him but what I saw in the picture was implausible. Not to mention that this man seems to be losing his mind ranting strange things all the time.
And no heroes? No villains? To whom we root for? The prisoner is way too passive, we barely hear him saying something and he's a major character that needed more screen time, we should know more about him and his involvement in this political rivalry. Amaro, Getúlio's friend who joins him on the trip is a nice character, has some funny lines, a very good companion to the main character. So many unexplained things that I won't even bother quoting them all.
I know I was a little bit distant from the film, head going over other thoughts but it was the film's fault, it loses itself into various tedious and long moments that doesn't add anything to us. And the ending? Why leave it open? João Ubaldo Ribeiro's book gives an ending, complete but the film's writer decided not to. Why?
The acting makes this worth while, all actors are good and deserve some praise for their works here but the rest is not good enough. Uninspired direction, the already mentioned weak script, awful cinematography, and an editing sometimes innovative.
Stubborness of me or persistence, cal it what you want but I stick to the end. Lesson learned here: the distinction between both are very thin and practically invisible. To each his own. 5/10
