This story is suspenseful and will keep you on the edge of your seat for the most part. The Tupi people were well known for practices that we see in the film, and you feel for Hans. The Natives are indeed in this film, quite savage. These are not the hollywood spiritual peaceful people we see in the movies today. They boast about how horribly they slaughter and consume the portuguese, those whom they see as invaders to their land. This film isn't about that however. For once, a story is told from the weak and not the strong. I definitely recommend it, but you'll need a strong stomach for it.
2 Reviews
A better version than the 1971 one
franbelle102 April 2024
A less nudist, less caricatured, less funny and darker version, but just as anthropological as 'Qu'il était bon, mon petit Français! (1971)", which was more of a comedy than a documentary.
Both versions are interesting, but "Hans Staden" wins by a narrow margin overall, the 1971 version being more Voltaire-like philosophical entertainment.
Both versions reflect on the nature of man, civilisation and barbarism.
The nudity is omnipresent but less heavy-handed and more natural in this version, which I prefer.
As I have not read Hans Staden's travelogues, I cannot comment on the accuracy of either version, except for the finale, which is much more faithful in this version..
Both versions are interesting, but "Hans Staden" wins by a narrow margin overall, the 1971 version being more Voltaire-like philosophical entertainment.
Both versions reflect on the nature of man, civilisation and barbarism.
The nudity is omnipresent but less heavy-handed and more natural in this version, which I prefer.
As I have not read Hans Staden's travelogues, I cannot comment on the accuracy of either version, except for the finale, which is much more faithful in this version..
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
