‘BRAZIL’ NUTS--AND NOT SO NUTS

There’s no doubt about how L.A. critics feel about “Brazil.” But how do the hinterland scribes feel about the L.A. Film Critics’ choice for best pic?

With the film now playing in 16 cities (it’s grossed only a fair $3.6 million in 17 days), we decided to sift at random through 20 out-of-town reviews. Thirteen were positive, three were negative and four were in the so-so category. There were 16 references to director Terry Gilliam’s battles with Universal, and 13 took note of the L.A. critics’ award.

In the mix:

“This is the kind of incoherent movie that drives studio executives nuts and intimidates easily intimidated critics into swooning, applauding and rationalizing” (Philly Daily News’ Joe Baltake).

“Subversive, haunting, nihilistic look at the past as future and the future past that will be the cat’s meow for some and just catty to others” (Detroit Free Press’ Catharine Rambeau).

“Those who love it will cherish it for years to come at midnight screenings, while those who hate it won’t last the first 30 minutes” (Boston Globe’s Michael Blowen).

“ ‘Brazil’ may be the ‘Strangelove’ of the 1980s” (Seattle Times’ John Hartl).

“I have seen it twice, and am still not sure exactly who all the characters are, or how they fit . . . there seems to be no sure hand at the controls” (Chicago Sun-Times’ Roger Ebert).

The Baltimore Sun’s Stephen Hunter found the film so original that he declared it had created a new genre--”totalitarian vaudeville.”

“Maybe they should have filmed the shouting matches” (S.F. Chronicle’s Gerald Nachman).

“Ironically, the Hollywood sleazeballs may have been right all along (to alter it)” (K.C. Star’s Robert W. Butler).