Accolades and public reception Brainstorm had its premiere in October 2000, when it was selected for and screened at the 2nd
Rio Film Festival. Later in the month, it was exhibited at the 24th
São Paulo International Film Festival, where it was the only Brazilian film—out of eleven—to be chosen by the public as one of the twelve best films of the festival. It was also the most awarded film at the 33rd
Brasília Film Festival, where it won seven awards out of thirteen, and at the 5th Recife Film Festival, where it won nine out of eleven awards. In early 2001, the film was screened in a public square during the Tiradentes Film Festival in
Minas Gerais; 11% of the two thousand people in the audience gave the film a rating of "Good," and 89% of them gave it an "Excellent."
Brainstorm grossed R$2,184,514 and was watched by 401,565 people in the 50 Brazilian theaters in which it was released. The
APCA awarded it Best Film, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Actor (Santoro). Santoro also received a Best Actor Award from the
National Conference of Bishops of Brazil, and the
Social Service of Commerce. In August 2001,
Brainstorm was featured at the 54th
Locarno International Film Festival, It subsequently won several international awards, including Best Film at the 2001
Biarritz Film Festival, Best First Film at the 2001
Trieste Film Festival, and Best First Film and Best Actor at the 2002
Cartagena Film Festival. It also entered into competition for Best Film at the 2001
Stockholm International Film Festival. Moreover, the film paved the way for new thinking about psychiatric institutions in Brazil which led to a law approved by
Congress that forbade such institutions.
Critical reception Domestic reception was generally positive.
Folha de S.Paulos deemed it "a portrait of hell in motion," "painted with such passion, competence and integrity" which makes it "both a torment and a pleasure." The newspaper commented that all Bodanzky's choices are "unerring", that the documentary tone "amplifies the incisiveness of history" and the natural dialogue, and that "the absence of proselytism facilitates the entry of the viewer in the universe of characters." Ivan Claudio of
IstoÉ Gente praised all of the cast including the extras, whose "wandering like zombies in the courtyards of the asylum ... contribute to the realistic climate of the film." He, however, highlighted Santoro, stating that the joint effort of the cast would be meaningless without his performance. Santoro and Camilo, as well as the other patient actors, were praised by Marcelo Forlani of
Omelete who said, "It's hard to believe that the actors here are not really crazy." Forlani praised the photography and the sound editing as factors that differentiate it from other films. Furthermore,
O Estado de S. Paulo dubbed it "the best Brazilian film since
retomada." In 2015, it was recognized by the Brazilian Film Critics Association as the 72nd best Brazilian film of all time on its
Top 100. In contrast, international critics were not so favorable. Derek Elley of American magazine
Variety said that with "an unattractive palette of cold, blue-green hues, pic does little to build sympathy for its protagonist or any of the other characters, and flashy visual effects for Neto's mental dislocation add to the viewer's own alienation."
The Hindus Gautaman Bhaskaran dubbed it "extremely gripping", "disturbing"; ultimately, he declared it has a "morbidity" and a "sense of truth, bitter and brutal". Writing for Indian magazine
Outlook,
Namrata Joshi praised it as "stylishly shot, alternating between a
cinéma vérité view of the Brazilian family life and
MTV images of the underground youth culture." Joshi, however, criticized it for its "excessive[ness] in the portrayal of the traumas of Neto which are evoked in the fashion of a radical,
nihilistic music video," and the fact he found the reason to intern Neto "never convincingly grounded in the narrative." Similarly,
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, a Swiss newspaper, criticized it for relying too much on special effects and for not presenting a deeper insight in the emotional conflict. The
World Socialist Web Site stated the film has a point in its subject "but the simplistic and outraged tone spoils the film" as "Anyone not already convinced that such institutions are monstrous will legitimately dismiss the work as intemperate
propaganda." == Notes and references ==