uh, i just did that {bought it without seeing it}, and you know....i expected better from a movie that ebert proclaimed, "one of the best films you'll ever see" {"ever" is underlined in the quote}.
its being compared to Goodfellas, but it certainly shouldn't be. The cinematography is more of a novelty thing, it is cool for, like, the first hour or so, but after that it just gets annoying.
though...the performances are good, and the violence is... just alright, but there are some memorable sequences such as the scene with the two little boys {The Runts}.
"A shocking and disturbing, but always compelling look at life in the slums of Rio de Janiero."
CONSENSUS from Rotten Tomatoes
the film was neither shocking or disturbing.
i cannot understand why all the critics love this movie so much.
The movie was just okay.
Last edited by Waggy the Dog on Jun 8th, 2004 at 11:31 PM
I rented it this afternoon, since buying a movie I've never seen seems rather pointless , and not very frugal.
Anyway, it had some interesting aerial cinematography, which I liked, and it was pretty compelling, IMO.
To put it bluntly, it's a real life "Boyz N Da Hood", set in Brazil.
Could have been a little shorter, and focused a little more on the photographer's development, but all in all, a great foreign film. Just nowhere near as violent or spectacular as people and critics have claimed.
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Waggy the Dog
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you there again. What this movie is, is a drama at heart. The music in this movie took away from that drama. Brazilian music doesn't really lend itself to dramatic depth at all. Especially Brazilian Party Music which is heard most of the time in the movie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe it's because the dramatic aspect of it is not the one that is particularly emphasized...but our opinions may be different on that subject (=> Movie discussion forum ?)"
Okay, we are here now. And I am bewildered you would say such a thing. Taken back with shock. This movie was based around the premise of a drama. The story itself isn't too engrossing, so the filmmakers have to produce a memorable and moving drama. Brazilian "rumba!" music doesn't fit the puzzle of a dramatic movie. And that is the ironic situation this movie is stuck in. The emphasis is heavily on drama, how else would this movie have worked? This movie could not have been a buddy-comedy or a romantic comedy, about a love-triangle, where characters “find love in the most unlikely of places". No. This movie is what it is. And with that said, it isn't much.
Yes it takes us back to the shock question. I think the director has intended to shock to a certain extent, but that it is not the main thing he's trying to put forward (otherwise any documentary would be enough). To me he's underscoring the "fiction part" of the movie : even if this is supposed to show how life is in the Brazilian favelas, the story (fiction) matters more. And the rythm of the movie is an important aspect of the Brazilian culture that deserved to be kept. It may make the movie more intense and emphasize its "shocking" or try-to-shock aspect (Ze Pequenho kills some people as if it was nothing, he shots some kids,... (hand or foot)).
About the "hand or foot" part (which I remember approximately): it is to show that Ze P. is ruthless,... but as the main subject of the movie isn't Ze Peq. himself but the life in Rio,... it's not IMHO as shocking as you think it is.
...So when for example Corlindel and I say that the aim is not to shock, we both refer at what we think is the central point of the movie: the Life in a favela. If you take this as a starting point, to say the director aims at shocking would mean that his trying hard to make people think "Oh my God life is really harsh and horrible there" by showing to much barbary. And once again to my mind that's not the case here.
First of all, I hated the movie. Therefore, whatever the director thinks is shocking or is trying to attempt to shock {I am aware of the redunduncy} us with, is lost upon me. None of it worked for me. All I am saying is that you said something akin to "the movie doesn't try to shock", and I think that scene "de-flowers" your comment Irreversible-style. You are saying that the director's main focus were the underlying themes of truth that little know of when it comes to the slums. What I am saying is that, they should have shown it differently. And as I said in earlier posts, it fails on almost every level for me. I didn't care about the characters, I didn't care how nihilistic the whole notion of violence at a young age is, and I certainly didn't care about the choices the director made, not only for plot development or character development, but in terms of cinemagraphic value. I hate psuedo-documentary-drama style of film, and this was exactly that.
As well as, the directors and screen writers missed the common fact of a character and it's development. I don't care if you showe me the whole range from the sixties to whenever. Character develpment isn't an arch but rather a rubix cube. So, in comparison, if you see the characters in Goodfellas and in City of God, you will see distinct differences in dramatic depth and character development.
{by the way, I chose Goodfellas because that is what City of God is being compared to. Just so there is no confusion. And if you already knew that, then sorry about this little...blurb}
Last edited by Waggy the Dog on Jul 12th, 2004 at 03:50 PM
the only smilie that comes to my mind is : I don't agree with that cos that's a matter of 1) point of view (I mean by that, as I said precedently, if you don't take the character of Ze P. as the center of the movie it's not a major scene) 2)Intention : to say that the film is shocking or trying to shock as you do is implying that this was the intention of the director : but this scene is clearly not a central scene of the movie : the fact that's the 12/13 years old kids have weapons would be more shocking than the Hand or foot scene: see, that's a matter of point of view.
Eventually, I kinda agree with you in the way that the director surely wants to create a shock. But (and there I fail to be clear because English isn't my mother tongue) it's not shocking to me. There lies the (slight) difference.
But anyway when it come to human feelings, nothing is more relative. Something really shocking for you can be ok for me and vice-versa. The best example is that you totally hate this movie whereas I enjoyed watching it and will still tonight,... (btw I'm amazed that a movie can cause so much hatred)
I'm getting late for an occasion so I will keep this short.
"the fact that's the 12/13 years old kids have weapons would be more shocking than the Hand or foot scene: see, that's a matter of point of view."
I am just going to add that the "Hand or Foot" scene is an almost mathematical result of the kids having weapons. Again, I DID NOT get disturbed by this as I so eloquently expressed in previous threads, but that in the eyes of most mainstream viewers can be deemed offensive and/or disturbing.
...uh...I don't know where the hell I am going with this...uh...
but, anyway, when you said that scene isn't a pivotal scene in the movie, I disagree with you there again. Because, as you say, it does convey how ruthless Ze is, and not only that, but the killing of the child comes back to "bite him in the ass", as some would say, at the end of the film. Remember what happens to Ze at the end? that ties in with the killing of the child perfectly.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Waggy the Dog
and I think that scene "de-flowers" your comment Irreversible-style
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
I don't quite understand what you think of my line here. But if it works for you, it works for me. And if it doesn't, then...I'll think of a new metaphor.
My line was about the dozen of "I hated" that suddenly appeared in your post (which, you will admit, contrast strongly with the style of your previous answers)
My opinion about your line came after the quote. Basically I don't really agree with it, for I wasn't shocked. But I try to establish a (slight) difference between creating a shock (the spectator says "Wow!") and shocking (the spectator says "Wow, what an harsh and violent world, I wouldn't like to live there !")
About the style of your line I'd say it's strange but erm, well, ok.
I am thinking of a new metaphor, though I am rather fond of the origninal one, I thought it got the point across quite nicely. I still viciously disagree with you, but accept your praise for this movie. Opinions are just that. But for your analogy, I would have to say the latter is more fitting for the movie.
Last edited by Waggy the Dog on Jul 12th, 2004 at 04:48 PM
KMC Community Forums
Jun 6th, 2004 07:25 PM
I don't agree with that cos that's a matter of 1) point of view (I mean by that, as I said precedently, if you don't take the character of Ze P. as the center of the movie it's not a major scene) 2)Intention : to say that the film is shocking or trying to shock as you do is implying that this was the intention of the director : but this scene is clearly not a central scene of the movie : the fact that's the 12/13 years old kids have weapons would be more shocking than the Hand or foot scene: see, that's a matter of point of view.
