 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.82.238.89
That film has been on my list to watch for some time. For months now the Netflix copy has been sitting by the player, unopened. My wife dislikes violent films and I didn't feel like making her watch it.Today friends stopped by and the guy asked to see a movie on big screen... City of Gods came up naturally, so we watched it - just the two of us.
Overall rating - a forgettable film. Yes, I could see some beauty in it, in some scenes, and it is certainly not a poorly made film, but all along I kept having that question: what did it give me that I did not have already? Did it do anything for me worth remembering? And the answer is a definite NO.
The film immediately brings the memories of its big sister - The Sandpit Generals, which, while much more sentimental and romantic, was also a trailblazing work... and gave us a memorable soundtrack.
I dunno... sometimes films grow on me as time passes, and perhaps this one will too, but today I remain largely (almost completely) untouched by that work.
""One of the best films you'll ever see!"--says Roger Ebert... well, perhaps it is statement like that one that is the reason I don't pay any attention to that man.
I just don't think so, Roger.
Follow Ups:
Yet another recent example of too much slickness and total lack of depth. The MO of trendy po-mo filmmakers, it seems. The film tackles an engaging subject, but ultimately has little to say about it, and intentionally or not glorifies the grisly violence.
glorified violence and the Mafia: the protagonist triumphs through murder, as did his father.
"Natural Born Killers" glorifies violence, using many directorial tricks to trivialize death and torture. Not the case with C of G, at all.
Movies change, technology is used in different ways, and jump cuts, hand-held, slow-mo, speeded up scenes, etc. necessarily don't dilute the impact. To me, the deaths of the characters in C of G were tragic, not heroic.
leading to it that's made to look glamourous. Of course the filmmakers are saying this is all horrible, but they can't stop themselves from simultaneously making it look hip and appealing. And apart from the film's portrayal of violence, it just isn't very good. The writing's pretty pedestrian.
How? Please remember that most of the dialog was spoken by children, who were generally uneducated. Should they have been quoting Shakespeare? Had they spoken more intelligent dialog I suspect your other complaint may have been "hardly realistic, children do not speak like that."
I had no particular problem with the dialogue, but rather with story's writing, which was anemic.
Well, I had to assume because you did not write what was pedestrian. And now "anemic." If not the dialog, then the "story's writing?" What exactly is that? I assume the dialog was written. So that would qualify. How was the writing anemic? Or the story? My understanding is that the story was based very closely upon the real life events. Should they have re-written the historial events to make it "non-anemic?" Again, what was "anemic" or pedestrian about the story? It was no more pedestrian than every John Wayne war and western film, every love story, and every sports story ever made. Please be specific so that there is something to respond to.
this film, if anything, sugar-coated a lot, in the interests of not being too shocking or unwatchable. Killing kids for organ-donations, child prostitution and lots of other common facts of favela life were not included.
This movie was based on a true story.
I am not sure what you mean by the film glorifies violence. Surely, showing and glorifying are two different things. The film clearly shows violence, but those that live by the sword end up dying by the sword. That the violence can be gruesome does not mean the film glorifies violence. Glorify means putting the violence is a positive light. After all, the root of the word is "glory." By showing those that live by violence also dying by violence is not to glorify violence. Rather, the clear message is that violence is ugly, and ultimately, leads nowhere but to the perpetrator's death. No glory there. Indeed, the main non-violent character survives, and leads a productive life. Contrast that with his violent friends. The violence is in service to the story, and an essential component. As essential to the story as the O.K. Corral was in Tombstone. Can you film Tombstone without the O.K. Corral? An example of glorified violence would be the by the numbers cop on the street film in which the criminal needlessly shoot bystanders, smashes up cars and city streets, then escaped to kill and maim another day.
Yes, and this is exactly what the filmmakers have done. They've made the violence cool and attractive, rather than horrible. The style of the undermines its message.
I am not sure we saw the same picture. I have seen many westerns. In my youth, and in my weaker moments as an adult, I have wanted to be Clint Eastwood. Free. No responsibility. And of course, being the fast draw and accurate shot. Killing the other guy before he kills you. And there is never a body to clean up. There is never any grieving mother, wives, or children. There is never any blood. Kill em' and move on.Can't say I wanted to be any of the characters in City of God. Can't say that I would have enjoyed growing up in a place like that. The former is a clear glorification of violence because there are no consequences, but because it happens in another time and place, we give it a pass.
What positive spin does City of God make on violence? What benefit does the film tell us that violence accomplishes? Who are the bad guys that are portrayed as good guys? I see City of God, and I see despair, and violent people getting their just rewards, and getting it rather unpleasantly, not merely a quick shot, then keel over. Hardly a sales pitch to join that fraternity.
Surely, you feel that it glorifies violence, you must have some scenes in mind, or what or how, specifically, it glorifies violence.
The violence is filmed in a seductive, attractive, hyper-stylized fashion that lends it an aura of hipness. The absurd, gigantic fight at the film's climax is a perfect example, as is the scene with the postal worker (I think he was a postal worker) giving the gang members they're come-uppance.The filmmakers surely intend to say the violence is nothing but tragic, but again, the stylized gloss they use to frame it simply obscures the point.
I must say that I saw through the "gloss." I liked the style, but it did not obscure the message, for me. One could argue that the message of anti-violence is lost if told in the same tried and true formulas of cinema past. Why go to see another film in a style that has been done to death. Hard to get the message when no one wants to see the film. See bad guy shoot. See bad guy get shot. The style, I think, is designed to upgrade the film for the modern audience. I have seen many James Cagney films, and am not sure that the style would play well here. Or even a seventies style. Perhaps the modern audience is still smart enough the get the message underlying the style.Certainly, I have not heard from groups whose job it is to protect us from ourselves complaining that the film was glorifying violence. The photography on an album cover does not change the music inside, for me. I suspect that the demographic for this film, and say, The Fast and the Furious, for whom style is everything, was a little different.
to live in this world and dislike pretty much everything it produces.
The Godfather, I Was A Fugitive From a Chain Gang, Once Upon a Time in America, Goodfellas, or any other crime epic.
The story is about two boyhood friends from one of the most dangerous slums in Rio: one finds a way out as a photographer and the other becomes a drug pin. This is, btw, based on a true story.
In the favelas of Rio, many kids begin using drugs, usually sniffing brain-cell destroying glue, around the age of 4. A more brutal, cut-throat environoment can't be found, yet it also a place where self-sacrifice, kindness, and love flowers: similar to a war zone, in other words.
The two main characters, and a host of supporting ones, are excellent. Many are non-actors portraying "themselves."
The style of the film, not unlike Pulp Fiction or Snatch, is comprised of complex directorial techniques but they brilliantly are incorparated and add to the excitement.
No, favelas are not a pretty world, but this film doesn't preach, excuse, or seek pity for the brutality it portrays.
You want a modern "noir" film? See this one...but prepare yourself to be moved.
Many, many film critics selected this as one of the best films of the year, with several major critics calling it a masterpiece.
It is.
...excellent but not close to The Godfather. But then neither are the others you mentioned.
It is an American epic, and as such gets an easy pass, but overall it is just a very good film, not much more.Why did you have to mention the fact it was based on a true story? What on Earth does it have to do with artistic merits of the film?
As I said, my feeling was that I have already seen it all, so it really gave me nothing new. The film simply didn't touch me and it is not lingering in my memory. With many films you still feel absorbed several hours, days, after you had seen them... not with this one. But then I was never in love with Pulp Fiction either... just a few of its episodes.
Do you ever watch a movie to learn about another time? Another place? Another culture? The fact that the film is based upon true events adds poignancy to the story because it adds relevance to the story. Similar, though maybe not to the same degree, as watching a murder on television and watching one in real life. There is no art is murder, so why must there be on the screen? The film simply seeks to show you a life in another part of the world, one which you would not likely have known about otherwise. Why criticize a film for not being "artful" when that it is not necessarily the intent of the filmmakers?Usually, when a film contains many subjects, it looses it's way. I thought the filmmakers did a very good job of taking many characters, over a long period of time, and making them individuals, humans, where it would have been easy make them human targets, wherein we learn nothing about them, the violence being the subject. That the filmmakers were able to take a very violent subject and make the focus on the humans was commendable. And I think artful. Otherwise, I would echo the comments of Tinear. An excellent film.
And because you were not moved may say more about you than the film.
Yeah, and Shaq's the greatest basketball player ever!!;-)
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
said that was your last Shaq comment?
Godfather is a very good movie but it suffers from glorifying the mafiosi.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
