I just saw this and wasn't quite convinced but it has to be a major Oscar contender. Extremely stylish, edgy at times, occasionally over-lush and melodramatic but very skillfully crafted and often brilliant. Subject matter and even the narrative are over-familiar, but it still looks fresh enough... although I'm wondering how much of that is because it's set in a new place cinematically.
See it if you get the chance, it's quite.. er... educational.
"Motherfucker! I told you to catch that chicken!"
I'm mot excited to see this movie of any movie because of the possibilities it has because I do think the mean streets of Rio De Janiero in Brazil are likely the most dangerous in the world. When I was flying to Brazil before, I had to stop in Rio briefly and someone told me to not go to the north side of Rio ever. I asked if I should maybe just be extra careful or never steer off the tourist hang outs instead. He said if you go to any part of the north side, you likely will never come back alive. So with this, I have always had a fascination with what really goes on there because of it being so notorious.
~rougerum
I'll be interested to hear what you think of the movie, then, because it doesn't really portray the danger in the way you suggest you are expecting. It seems to reference American film in the way it glamourises the drugs and violence and makes the relationships melodramatic in the way that, say, Scorsese does (Goodfellas is most recognisable). In the first section, especially, the slum is portrayed as a kind of sunny, happy, if wild place, teeming with life etc. Even at the end the film evokes westerns and other Hollywood narratives, so it treads the line between what we like to think of as real and what we might call fantasy. It does that extremely skillfully.
saw it the other day... was very impressed... great movie
Quote from: budgieoccasionally over-lush
In an Appocalypse Now kind of way?
My mom wants to see this with me, so before I go I need to know something to avoid uncomfortable tension. Is there any/alot of nudity or sex? Thanks
not too much nudity, but there will be uncomfortable-ness
City of God is a very good movie. I don't think I have seen any underworld films where all the characters are so young. That definitely makes everything more tragic. The script and direction do not make any mistakes or use any cliches that took me out of the film's world. COG is pretty violent, so this is not a film for the faint of heart, but the violence is never exploitative or gratuitous.
Welcome Ravi...
COG is a damn fine movie and has a huge impact. It is especially nice how the ending credits juxtapose photo's and video of the original people with the actors who played them. Very cool and very scary because it really drives the point home that this CRAZY SHIT was really happening
This is one of my really highly anticipated movies of the 2003, definitely. The reviews are really incredible...I like hearing it compared to Tarantino, that's intriguing as can be.
That poster is awesome. Jesus, some of those brazilian women are impossibly shaped...I'm not saying that in a bad way at all, I love it. It's amazing how skinny they are yet a lot of them are very very shapely...they are gorgeous.
Quote from: ebeaman69That poster is awesome. Jesus, brazilian women are impossibly shaped....
As a Brazilian women I'd like to thank you on behalf of the female population here. We feel like we don't get enough recognition for our beauty.
Quote from: jmjQuote from: ebeaman69That poster is awesome. Jesus, brazilian women are impossibly shaped....
As a Brazilian women I'd like to thank you on behalf of the female population here. We feel like we don't get enough recognition for our beauty.
Really? Well, that's just a shame...really it is. I'm glad to help though. My love for women is fucking through the roof...while their love for me is microscopic...oh well...c'est la vie.
I stayed in Brazil for a while last summer and couldn't help but notice that with the women, the younger women, that they all dressed like they were in competition for a modeling contract or something. Brazil has an incredible natural beauty to it, but an urban decay along with it. The one image of Brazil that I still can not get out of my mind is seeing slums right next to major buildings in a large city and seeing large billboards in those slums when they were next to a large road.
~rougerum
I saw City of God a few days ago... Great movie, not one of my fav's. But definately a good movie. If I could change anything about the movie... I would change the director's style. Tooo Much handheld.. Way too much, in my opinion. But thats just my preference. Most of the movie to me, seemed like a sloppy, jerky, handheld style which wasent my thi.....
chris
it's a goddamned shame that it's not up for the best foreign film oscar. this was my top movie of the year...
After major acclaim for his work on "City of God", Director Fernando Meirelles unveiled to ScreenDaily details of his follow-up effort described as "a drama-comedy about globalisation and the relationship between the northern and southern hemispheres". Five separate storylines will all end up intertwining towards the end of the film whilst settings will be spread across six different countries including the Arab Emirates, Kenya, China, New York City, the Philippines, and Brazil. Much of the creative talent behind "City of God" will work on this too including the same writer, editor and DOP however "About Schhmidt" writer Alexander Payne will also again advise on the script. Budgeted at $10m-$12m, Miramax has first option rights on the project whose first draft is due in November, and its scheduled for shooting next year with a 2005 release being targeted.
Its limited release in the US was Jan 17, so it's not eligible for the Oscar anyway... right?
I really liked the movie, although its mood had me going up and down and up and down... wasn't sure what exactly to think at the credits. A really beautiful movie though.
I think this kind of thing takes a while for us to absorb... it will probably gain relevance and popularity in the future.
Budgie said it's "overlush"... absolutely, but more in an Oliver Stone way that an Apoccalypse Now way.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanIts limited release in the US was Jan 17, so it's not eligible for the Oscar anyway... right?
But it was released in its country of origin (Brazil) on Aug. 30 2002. Thus, it qualified to be nominated.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanBudgie said it's "overlush"... absolutely, but more in an Oliver Stone way that an Apoccalypse Now way.
That's exactly what I would have said if I hadn't left you to find out for yourself.
I don't understand how this has been overlooked awards-wise, specially with all the South American cinema hype going on at the minute. :yabbse-huh:
i think the main reason is that there is SO many good films going around right now. if u think about it, 2002 was a great year for film. maybe there's too much competition??
I just saw this film yesterday. Very good. I'm a bit confused myself how it wasn't considered for the Oscars. Doesn't surprise me though.
Anyways, the films style (i.e. some of those great 360 degree shots, etc.) reminded me of Tom Tykwer's work. More thoroughly, 'Run Lola Run'. Anyone else get that impression?
Quote from: RecceAnyways, the films style (i.e. some of those great 360 degree shots, etc.) reminded me of Tom Tykwer's work. More thoroughly, 'Run Lola Run'. Anyone else get that impression?
Most Definitely...but in a good way, not like he was biting his style or anything.
Quote from: jmjQuote from: RecceAnyways, the films style (i.e. some of those great 360 degree shots, etc.) reminded me of Tom Tykwer's work. More thoroughly, 'Run Lola Run'. Anyone else get that impression?
Most Definitely...but in a good way, not like he was biting his style or anything.
yeah, exactly
I haven't finished my long boring review yet, but this film is a masterpiece and not only a movie among the most important, but is one of the best films I have ever seen, period. It's not a mere taking of the style of Goodfellas to another story, but a jumping pad from aspects of that movie that goes to places of film art light years beyond it. City of God goes along with other films like Citizen Kane, L'Avventura, and 2001: A Space Odyssey in creating new identities for what a film can be. It is the best so far this decade, and likely the best for me since 2001: A Space Odyssey or Grave of the Fireflies. With only two viewings, I place it in the top ten list for best ever and I still feel like there are worlds to this film to still discover. The worst idea about this film is that people are focusing on how it is like Goodfellas, which actually does very little in saying what is great about it.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI haven't finished my long boring review yet, but this film is a masterpiece and not only a movie among the most important, but is one of the best films I have ever seen, period. It's not a mere taking of the style of Goodfellas to another story, but a jumping pad from aspects of that movie that goes to places of film art light years beyond it. City of God goes along with other films like Citizen Kane, L'Avventura, and 2001: A Space Odyssey in creating new identities for what a film can be. It is the best so far this decade, and likely the best for me since 2001: A Space Odyssey or Grave of the Fireflies. With only two viewings, I place it in the top ten list for best ever and I still feel like there are worlds to this film to still discover. The worst idea about this film is that people are focusing on how it is like Goodfellas, which actually does very little in saying what is great about it.
~rougerum
that is a very strong statement, and I am almost inclined not to disagree
I know its strong and for the last two days, I've been wondering if it is too strong. Thing is, right after the movie I am completely convinced the movie is of greatness worth that level and a day afterward, I am still convinced. I think it goes with the history of a movie like L'Avventura, which is considered by many to be great, but very few consider it to be of importance near par or to par with Citizen Kane. I agree with those who said it felt like it was creating a new art form, because looking at what it was and how it was, it basically was. I think this movie did too and is up there at the level and I am completely convinced of it even though I am have not heard anyone say it yet, even critic wise.
~rougerum
I really liked this movie, especially the beginning, but after a while you get desensitized to the violence, which is probably meant to happen. Just a very entertaining and real movie. SPOILERS! The little kids getting shot in the feet was very difficult to watch.
I saw it recently and I just think it's fucking great. Definitely will be one of the best films of 2003...loved it. There could have been less handheld, yes....but it was still awesome.
Ok, for most people, get ready to be bored and also mad for my apparent prentitious thoughts of thinking this to be one of the absolute best movies ever, but to the 2 or 3 who may actually like the review, then you got a large read ahead because *sounds trumpets (golden ones)* this is my review of City of God:
CITY OF GOD
In its exteriors, ‘City of God’ matches well Goodfellas. Both exude a similiar narrative with a character that seems to exist within the world of crime, but also outside of it in bringing an understanding to the situation. This is where the similarities end for the most part though, Goodfellas operated within a classical narrative reminiscient of Max Ophuls at his greatest and classical Hollywood narrative. The shots and editing of Goodfellas very much follow that of Hollywood films and then as the story progresses into later decades, it shows inspiration from those periods of filmmaking. 1950s/60s, the childhood of the narrator, dealt in longer shots and romantification of the life of the gangster without realization of its violent nature. 1970s showed him as a young man with the realism of violence brought to the forefront, as did in 1970s filmmaking with the indie movement to capture realism above anything else. 1980s, the decline and paranoia of the narrator, showed it with a break of classical Hollywood editing a little and replaced it with quick cut editing that we see today in building images upon images to tell the story. City of operates closest to this last level in building images upon images to tell the story. The thing is though, most films began to use quick cut editing still very much are telling the same old stories like any other period. The only difference between them is just the editing. It has become weakening for the films of today, performances are more likely to be lost within it. Most movies have not given any reason for using the quick cut editing at all. City of God, in fact, operates at a level where poetry is made quick cut editing. City of God has taken all the new techniques and ideas of how to make a film and created something new, something that feels like a new art form within another. City of God is the realization of everything in film today when put to thought and purpose.
The movie City of God is nearest is likely Leaving Las Vegas. Up until City of God, Leaving Las Vegas was the most convincing example that was with the new focus on heightened editing that you could get something that was completely poetic within how it was edited. The best example of editing to power and poetry came when Nicolas Cage was completely drunk and trying to hit on a woman behind a counter who was serving him. In a scene of fantasy, Nic Cage imagines himself sweet talking and charming the woman as she was being very nice and charmed by him. The truth of the edn though was that she was not charmed by him at all. The fantasy image of him being charming and sweet was gone and his image of sadness and desperation brought back and we realized all the nice talking she said was what she said to any normal customer. Nic Cage’s character saw this as he stood in line and imagined it to be her reaction for himself as well. That scene was a magnificent one the direct result of editing of images to evoke the most effective responce fitting to the scene. Leaving Las Vegas is grounded in the traditional methods of story and actor dominance, but has a pure freedom in using visual imagery, editing and music to bring out its story in the most effective way. City of God only has the slimmest basis of traditional storyline that results in camera to be still and actor talk and is more pure poetry of editing than anything else. To fully appreciate the genius and new accomplishments within City of God is to realize the world of wonder and innovation it has in pure visual poetry.
City of God acts on the basis of paranoia and chaos within the narrator of Goodfellas during his downfall. Where Goodfellas was a great stylization of the classic rise and fall with the realism of violence inserted, City of God is the hell that that violence could be at its worst. Its world kows no stability, but only chaos and it never ends nor is coherent. Within the movie there are snippets of storylines that give the hope that something other than chaos will prevail, or even could. The scene where Shaggy finds hiding in the home of a lady and romances a young girl promising her escape, freedom, and above all, happiness and stability. It does not go well nor even shows signs of stability. All that is seen is his seduction of her promises for something better. The ending is that he is shotdown by police for the crime he committed earlier in the movie. She gets out of the slums but is seen later in the movie back in the slums with another hoodlum. Later on, a truthful romance happens between a nice (he actually has a lot of redeemable qualities) hoodlum and a girl. Like the other couple, the same promises are vouged and when it looks like they may make it out, he is shot down by a drug dealer getting revenge for being dismissed from the slums and his job. Other stories arise where people try to do good or find some sort of emotional stability, but just cannot. City of God is the story of a place so unnerved by being controlled by violence, that it lives only to accept it and that death can and likely will come to them early on in life. If not being killed a gun or knife, then by the drugs that run through it with more availabilty than fresh water. In presenting prolly the most violent world to ever be put on film, City of God goes for the reality and also movie realism together, combine for the most effective feeling in a movie I have ever seen. So much so, that every action movie looks tame and fake when compared to it. The reason the movie accomplishes this is due to the poetry of images for power and explanation that it rests on.
One of the best ways of looking at City of God is just marveling at the focus of how much thought is put into every single scene being shown, and how it is edited together for impact. Symbolism has no grounds in this movie, but just the experience of watchig the movie. One of my biggest criticisms of movies todays has come through them having meanings that can be just as well easily brought forward through be written down instead of being shown. Contrivance and the idea the movie can be a pay off through a cute idea is marking well in films that are getting widely acclaimed. If the movie can be understood in meaning of appreciation through some words on a paper, then what meaning does it have to being a film anyways? The appreciation should come through the pleasure of watching and experiencing a skilled story that can operate as a story. Adaptation has been a wonderful movie for me to pick on, and in telling a story, it is even funner to pick on because all the movie did through out the entire thing was drag itself in how a film of artistic wealth was better than an action movie or whatever and how Charlie Kaufmann should have been looked up for that instead of being pulled down for it. The entire movie played off just to give its ending idea, which really is a rip off of 8 1/2 in finding a pure artiface ending to end the movie. City of God cannot be appreciated by anything really said about it, only when viewed and watched. My attempt is purely to just give the best way to look at it, though my own opinion still. This movie does not slack for even 20 seconds in its editing and I could not even begin to dissect this movie like any other in a normal critique. This movie operates on the level of its relation to editing and how it benefits from it and to do that, it feels like a class for the purpose of deconstructing just this film could be the only answer. But even as I speak of how I have seen the movie twice, once more than most movies I give reviews to formal or not, this film still feels new to me and seems like over the years, as people start to get a more curious eye and ear to how trying to understand how distinct this movie is when compared to others, that maybe they can begin to really appreciate it more and see how so much was put into this film. I hardly know the film, but think I know where to begin in really analyzing it. I think in 5 years and having seen it many times, I still will feel a little intimidated with trying to put this film into perspective for understanding all the cuts and edits, but that seems like to be the best feeling anyone could ever ask of a movie.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold Trumpetthe 2 or 3
:shock:
gotta be honest.
~rougerum
Just saw it today. Truly wonderfull.
Everybody should see this movie.
It will come down as on of the best movies of the first decade of the 21st Century.
Quote from: BILLYBROWNJust saw it today. Truly wonderfull.
Everybody should see this movie.
It will come down as on of the best movies of the first decade of the 21st Century.
Any more insight why you think this?
Actually, I'll shove BillBrown to the side and speak some more on this film and why I think it is one of the absolute best films. I saw it again recently and another idea came to me on the film, and I realized my original review was a shit stain without clarification and get to the fucking point exercise. Well the point? The point is, this film establishes a pure feeling coinciding with the feeling of world that the movie takes place in. Leaving Las Vegas was the only other great example through its editing and shooting and everything, did it use its world to bring out a certain feeling that was on one hand, truthful for the city and the characters to. Most movies act as postcards when dealing with foreign lands, they photograph that unkown land just as they would for any other movie that it sit in a place requiring of put camera in front of mother fucker and let him talk. That only speaks for enlightenment of that mother fucker and not the world around him. Sure, movies will have moments where it utilizes certain techniques in filmmaking to draw feeling of its cultures, but still maintain ground in place camera in front of dude and let him spit. City of God wraps itself in a world that is purely based on the feeling of that world and since that feeling of one of constant chaos, the filmmaking utilizes techniques after techniques that in my mind, likely displays every single technique imaginable in the movies from the last 35 years that speaks of guerilla filmmaking cutting and shooting, with even digital effects that doesn't intrude, but actually intensifies and it is nice because in such a film that brings out the most possible realism, digital filmmaking can still be represented in some way.
Now onto the greatest segway I have ever done, the use of basically every technique imaginable in the last 35 years speaks on one level for this movie being the Citizen Kane of now. Citizen Kane basically was the movie that had every single thing imaginable learned in movies from the times put into one movie, and also had a story that was the extreme for the stories of its time. It was the most epic movie that was completely emerged in the aethesitics of the art of film. City of God, in utilizing everything learned in the last 35 years of cinema, which has been preocuppied in trying to attain realism. And the most used and also exploited thing common in this time period has been the use of violence. City of God is the most extreme story that can be told, the pure hell of a violent world shown and it also proves pure realism is not only not attainable, but not desirable. City of God gets rid of so much bullshit dealing with movies (the theatre techniques of acting, mostly) in attaining realism but heightens that realism over the edge with filmmaking in artiface that transcends the story into an emotional experience that speaks of the power and magic of movies and how great realism is with the movies.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet*sounds trumpets (golden ones)*
I've been waiting my entire life for that.
saw this the other day -- absolutely excellent -- all good things have already been said. very impressed. does any one know the budget?
Quote from: cowboykurtisdoes any one know the budget?
City of God is a co-production of O2 Filmes and of VideoFilmes. Filming was made in nine weeks between the months of June and August 2001. The production had a $3,300,000 cost, 85% financed by O2 Filmes and the remaining by the audiovisual decree.
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: cowboykurtisdoes any one know the budget?
City of God is a co-production of O2 Filmes and of VideoFilmes. Filming was made in nine weeks between the months of June and August 2001. The production had a $3,300,000 cost, 85% financed by O2 Filmes and the remaining by the audiovisual decree.
gracias
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: Jeremy BlackmanIts limited release in the US was Jan 17, so it's not eligible for the Oscar anyway... right?
But it was released in its country of origin (Brazil) on Aug. 30 2002. Thus, it qualified to be nominated.
this is the wrong assumption, isn't it. the academy deals with foreign films according to when they are released in the US. this explains why y tu mamma tambien was up for best foreign this year, despite the fact that it opened in june of 2001 in mexico.
that being said, if i'm right and this movie will be eligible for next years oscars, this has to be a front runner. just saw it tonight, this film is amazing. there were NOT too many handheld shots. many times handheld shots are used inappropriately and thus many people forget the purpose of handheld shots. their meant to be chaotic and jarring...which is what this entire movie was about. stedicam has no place in this movie.
also, i certainly wasn't desensitized to any of the violence. which is why i believe the film worked so well. what made the violence work so well is the way that the film will often make you laugh immediately before or even during an extremely violent scene. i love it when directors do this, not in a cheesy violence-is-cool kind of way, but in a i-know-you-want-to-laugh-but-don't-this-is-fucked-up-shit sort of way. makes teh violence more powerful when you catch yourself undervaluing it for a second with laughter. for example SPOILER when lil-dice is shown killing the people in the hotel, his facial expressions make this scene almost amusing, how delighted this kid is with killing, several people in teh theater laughed, but after he started unloading for the second time, with the same smile on his face, the laughter stopped. thats powerful. DONE SPOILER
besides, this movie is amazing for the simple fact that i have never seen a chicken personified so well. move over chicken run, the first four minutes of this movie might make me give up white meat forever.
gonna ride into nyc and pay another $10 to see this one again (and maybe again) if you haven't seen it, go, NOW
I totally forgot about that chicken chase. That was a fine piece of camerawork.
Quote from: DanTMcGovernQuote from: MacGuffinQuote from: Jeremy BlackmanIts limited release in the US was Jan 17, so it's not eligible for the Oscar anyway... right?
But it was released in its country of origin (Brazil) on Aug. 30 2002. Thus, it qualified to be nominated.
this is the wrong assumption, isn't it. the academy deals with foreign films according to when they are released in the US. this explains why y tu mamma tambien was up for best foreign this year, despite the fact that it opened in june of 2001 in mexico.
It is not an assumption, and "Y Tu Mama" was
not nominated for Best Foreign Film. It's clearly stated in the Academy rules that they go by release date in country of origin for Best Foreign Film. The year before "Y Tu Mama" was eligible, but Mexico chose "Amores Perros" to represent their country for that year. But since it was released in the US last year, "Y Tu Mama" was eligible to be nominated in other catagories, thus it's
only nomination in the screenplay catagory (Mexico's "El Crimen Del Padre Amaro" represented their country and it was nominated for Best Foreign Film).
Quote from: MacGuffinIt is not an assumption, and "Y Tu Mama" was not nominated for Best Foreign Film. It's clearly stated in the Academy rules that they go by release date in country of origin for Best Foreign Film. The year before "Y Tu Mama" was eligible, but Mexico chose "Amores Perros" to represent their country for that year. But since it was released in the US last year, "Y Tu Mama" was eligible to be nominated in other catagories, thus it's only nomination in the screenplay catagory (Mexico's "El Crimen Del Padre Amaro" represented their country and it was nominated for Best Foreign Film).
I stand corrected, but no matter, so far City of God is the best film this year and should be up for Best Picture. But it's only may, and that's only my opinion, and i'm an idiot...
Lately, I see all the movies a month after people stop talking about it.
This film was great... I really thought it was going to be bad at first... thought it was going to be like a brazillian Guy Ritchey film, but it didn't take long for it to reveal it's true self.
I wouldn't go as far as Gold Trumpet here (in fact, given his usually taste in film, I figured he wouldn't like it, maybe once it gets more popular, he'll update his review), but it really is great.
How loosley is this based on a true story?
you'd think this movie would be on dvd by now, or at least have a date set for the release.
RK, I'm not going back on this one and even though some people believe I like movies based on how popular they are, I really don't at all. I do have reasons to support my disagreements with films so don't pigeon hole me even if you think i am wrong. Some films do change over a period of time which should be expected. I only half heartedly liked the wes anderson films before turning my cheek on them as with others.
~rougerum
I've thought about this some more and still think the idea of City of God fallling in quality over a period of time still seems unlikely. Though the film hit me so suddenly right away doesn't mean the film doesnt have more to offer. I think just examining the editing, it has an entire world to offer. I do think there is room for something else to happen and that is another film may surpass it in my eyes over time. I was able to watch Spirited Away again just yesterday and watching it with new people who saw it on a different side then I did just made the movie only that more special. I think Spirited Away has a chance in surpassing City of God because even now, I consider it right below City of God anyways. I still have the hardest time trying to even explain spirited away to anyone. Really a remarkable movie and one of the best of all time and personal favorite for me.
~rougerum
Quote from: DanTMcGovernso far City of God is the best film this year and should be up for Best Picture.
The only question is... should it be eligible for the Xixax awards?
i would like to extend a heartfelt thanks to those of you who engage in serious, meaningful film discussion and debate...i recognize there are many distractions here and often ill tempered citizens who would try to steer threads in an unproductive, antagonistic direction...but it is you few who...i like that...you few who...that remind me of why we are all here...your insights continually enlighten me as to how i can more appreciate cinema...i am educated by you and have been introduced to a world of information that i never knew existed...the spirited, honest discussion you engage in should be an example to all of us as to how movie lovers everywhere can grow together in peace and understanding...i look forward to not only the wealth of knowledge and understanding each of you demonstrate but also to the brilliant films you may one day make...or have made...who knew...i dream of a day when we will sit together in a darkened theater and enjoy a film together...we could then go out afterwards and discuss the intricacies of the collaborative process...how effective the director was in carrying out his vision...if his vision was worth carrying out at all...the acting...too internal?...over the top?...the cinematography...who has he worked with before?...the opening weekend box office...the...the...oh the possibilities...but we must not agree on everything...even if we do...please pretend we dont...if only you would play the devils advocate...excite me with your ability to argue both sides of the issue...never revealing your true feelings...until the end...when you spring them on me in a whirlwind of passion and informative ecstasy...i love it...i am full of life and love and i owe it to you my friends...my cinema eating...film loving...movie discussing professors of the silver screen...where would i be without you to guide me and challenge me and point me to a brighter future...statues will be erected to honor your brilliance and insight...books will be written to chronicle your evolution...the simple yet profound opinions you hold...the unbridled desire to share with others...the enthusiasm for all that is film...the board is yours and we are merely standing in your way...ignore our silly games and march on to your predestined zion where you will be surrounded by brainloads of names and dates and theories and critiques and popcorn and oh what a world...i envy you...you who have studied the history of this art form...who have read enough and seen enough to formulate such wonderful views on the past present and future of film...you carry a torch of understanding...a sword of truth and a book of names...teach us...you can still reach us...when we seem far we are near...oh yes...we rely on you...for without the sharing and caring we have only hiptronic hystrionic fits for shoes and we skip to the meat treat beat without knowing what you know...feeling what you bleed and seeing what you see...the trumpet has sounded...the call to arms has been sent...no more should we entertain ourselves with delusions of confusion...tis time to book up and demonsrate our ability to regurgitate film reviews we have read...textbooks we wrote...interviews we watched and opinions we respect...our favorite filmmakers are gods...because we worship them they are gods...they are gods because we worship them...they are us and we are them...we are gods and what we speak is scripture...we are entitled to our scripture and it is blasphemy to disagree...we may disguise our contempt but secretly we know the opinions of others...especially regarding movies...dont add up...cant count...condemn us no longer holy ones...lead us to the promise land or at least back to the new wave...part the sea of mediocrity and guide your people to the local cineplex of plenty...movies from heaven to feed our souls...thank you father...thank you for providing us what we need...what this board needs...fulfilling its purpose and design...keeping it sacred and real...talking your movie speel...never detracting...always reacting...sorry for such a short note but i have trouble expressing myself when it comes to my feelings and i am entitled enough to take as much space as needed in order to feel vindicated...no...understood...thats better...you are my children...my siblings...my parents...do you like me...can i be heard...do my thoughts matter...whats the matter...oh no no...not again...please mom anything...spank me...ground me...please dont make me watch those old movies again...a childhood of abuse and neglect left a poor excuse for the rants you let loose...its all rock and roll to me...
whew
That was straight from the heart and truthful. Thank you for sharing yourself. It is much appreciated.
...think nothing of it my friend
Quote from: mei would like to extend a heartfelt thanks to those of you who engage in serious, meaningful film discussion and debate...i recognize there are many ................................
whew
shit...got my attention and respect....very well put!
*buys a round of drinks*
Quote from: mei would like to extend a heartfelt thanks to those of you who engage in serious, meaningful film discussion and debate...............................................a childhood of abuse and neglect left a poor excuse for the rants you let loose...its all rock and roll to me...
whew
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.treefort.org%2F%7Ergrogan%2Fweb%2Fgood_job.gif&hash=579c904b4f39662f322d7cf67e18403ef3937956)
i think a xixax film festival/keg party would be pretty nice.
Quote from: mei would like to extend a heartfelt thanks to those of you who engage in serious, meaningful film discussion and debate...i recognize there are many distractions here and often ill tempered citizens who would try to steer threads in an unproductive, antagonistic direction...but it is you few who...i like that...you few who...that remind me of why we are all here...your insights continually enlighten me as to how i can more appreciate cinema...i am educated by you and have been introduced to a world of information that i never knew existed...the spirited, honest discussion you engage in should be an example to all of us as to how movie lovers everywhere can grow together in peace and understanding...i look forward to not only the wealth of knowledge and understanding each of you demonstrate but also to the brilliant films you may one day make...or have made...who knew...i dream of a day when we will sit together in a darkened theater and enjoy a film together...we could then go out afterwards and discuss the intricacies of the collaborative process...how effective the director was in carrying out his vision...if his vision was worth carrying out at all...the acting...too internal?...over the top?...the cinematography...who has he worked with before?...the opening weekend box office...the...the...oh the possibilities...but we must not agree on everything...even if we do...please pretend we dont...if only you would play the devils advocate...excite me with your ability to argue both sides of the issue...never revealing your true feelings...until the end...when you spring them on me in a whirlwind of passion and informative ecstasy...i love it...i am full of life and love and i owe it to you my friends...my cinema eating...film loving...movie discussing professors of the silver screen...where would i be without you to guide me and challenge me and point me to a brighter future...statues will be erected to honor your brilliance and insight...books will be written to chronicle your evolution...the simple yet profound opinions you hold...the unbridled desire to share with others...the enthusiasm for all that is film...the board is yours and we are merely standing in your way...ignore our silly games and march on to your predestined zion where you will be surrounded by brainloads of names and dates and theories and critiques and popcorn and oh what a world...i envy you...you who have studied the history of this art form...who have read enough and seen enough to formulate such wonderful views on the past present and future of film...you carry a torch of understanding...a sword of truth and a book of names...teach us...you can still reach us...when we seem far we are near...oh yes...we rely on you...for without the sharing and caring we have only hiptronic hystrionic fits for shoes and we skip to the meat treat beat without knowing what you know...feeling what you bleed and seeing what you see...the trumpet has sounded...the call to arms has been sent...no more should we entertain ourselves with delusions of confusion...tis time to book up and demonsrate our ability to regurgitate film reviews we have read...textbooks we wrote...interviews we watched and opinions we respect...our favorite filmmakers are gods...because we worship them they are gods...they are gods because we worship them...they are us and we are them...we are gods and what we speak is scripture...we are entitled to our scripture and it is blasphemy to disagree...we may disguise our contempt but secretly we know the opinions of others...especially regarding movies...dont add up...cant count...condemn us no longer holy ones...lead us to the promise land or at least back to the new wave...part the sea of mediocrity and guide your people to the local cineplex of plenty...movies from heaven to feed our souls...thank you father...thank you for providing us what we need...what this board needs...fulfilling its purpose and design...keeping it sacred and real...talking your movie speel...never detracting...always reacting...sorry for such a short note but i have trouble expressing myself when it comes to my feelings and i am entitled enough to take as much space as needed in order to feel vindicated...no...understood...thats better...you are my children...my siblings...my parents...do you like me...can i be heard...do my thoughts matter...whats the matter...oh no no...not again...please mom anything...spank me...ground me...please dont make me watch those old movies again...a childhood of abuse and neglect left a poor excuse for the rants you let loose...its all rock and roll to me...
whew
I hope this isn't tongue-in-cheek, cuz that's how I feel about this board... and life with movies in general. Maybe I'm too serious, but what the hell.
seriously tho...
hope is 4 letta...
word
So honest excitement and enthusiasm aren't in vogue now, or what?
i dont subscribe to that magazine...
tho i sumtimes look at the pictures...
i didn't like that video. but i like listening to the song tho.
if CITY OF GOD still belongs in this topic, uhh... i liked it.
if i believe you have contributed anything meaningful...uh...i doubt it
You're kinda mean-spirited, yes?
uh...the truth hurts?
Sometimes. But sometimes it can set you free.
so now then you get my point for being me...
to hurt then set free...
my poor prisoners of war...
the battle rages on
Yeah, but there's so much hurt already. How about set free 80%, hurt 20%?
ah...the mathematics of enlightenment...a flavorite of mine...
100% truth cannot be divided into non equivalent portions...
...to do so upsets the crucial balance of the algorhythmic food chain...
...neither pronounced nyther can it be a fifty fifty split...the possibility of that evokes an orange vanilla banana sundae that only makes me hungry for the desert...
palm springs is hot this time of year...
so now then...what have we learned?...
if you must know the truth...freedom and hurt are the reciprocal of truth...when multiplied together you have one...
one what?...one heck of a tasty treat of course...
class dismissed
Par usual, I can't keep up with you.
But you certainly can divide up the truth... haven't you heard of a white lie?
i bet you wouldnt have phrased it that way if you knew i was white...
always tryin to keep the man down...damn
consider this...white is not a color at all...simply the reflection of all others...so its not really a lie but a reflection of some colorful distortion...
i enjoy art and often frequent his deli
I like art too...he drove a mean ass school bus.
Quote from: mei bet you wouldnt have phrased it that way if you knew i was white...
always tryin to keep the man down...damn
consider this...white is not a color at all...simply the reflection of all others...so its not really a lie but a reflection of some colorful distortion...
Hmmm. Yeah, I'll definitely go along with that. I still feel a little guilty if I have to tell one, though.
:)
just finally saw this movie a second time today and brought a bunch of high school buddies and my girlfriend, all of whom had no idea what they were in for, and all came out loving it. i saw it when it opened a few months ago in nyc and didnt really know how much i enjoyed it, (till i sat thru the cold cold spring of hollywood crapola and realized that i had probably seen one of my favorite movies of 2003 without realizing it.) seeing it with a few other people kind of reminded me how good it really was.
this has probably been asked already, but when is this coming out on DVD?
Quote from: dufresnethis has probably been asked already, but when is this coming out on DVD?
Yeah, Mac, do you know???
As far as I know, the DVD release date hasn't been announced yet.
'kay, cool.
If you hear, will you come and post in this thread?
Thanks in advance.
argh! tricked. i thought for sure, the dvd release had been announced since the topic alive again! damnit. the fucking thing came out 6 months ago, and they havent even announced the release date yet. this is torture.
Can anyone confirm this? It was taken from an IMDB message board.
According to www.folha.com.br, City of God will have a worlwide re-release in the end of 2003, hoping to run for the 2004 Oscar. That will be possible since, for the Americans, it is a 2003 movie, because it was released in the U.S. last January.
The site said Miramax thinks that City of God not running for the 2003 Oscar was "the biggest injustice in the history of the Academy".
Read the news (in Portuguese) here:
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ilustrada/ult90u33520.shtml
p.s. It will be released in DVD - in Brazil only - this June.
Confirmed, which will probably delay the DVD release:
Rerelease Note: (5/18/03) Talking to "The Hollywood Reporter" this week at Cannes, Harvey Weinstein of Miramax revealed that he plans on rereleasing this movie in December, 2003 so that it can be considered for the Academy Awards again (in all categories except Foreign Language, since its chance in that category was last year).
fuuuuuuck.
does this mean that the film will be elligible for a xixaxie this year?
Quote from: cecil b. dementeddoes this mean that the film will be elligible for a xixaxie this year?
I would say yes, especially because it wasn't last year. One person had seen it by Xixax Awards time.
It's incredible but you guys have watched this movie and you are so far away from Brazil, but this movie has not been distributed here in Southamerica!!! and i can't watch it snif snif :cry:
and that's a great problem in Latinamerica we don't appraise our cinema as we must
Quote from: lamas
The site said Miramax thinks that City of God not running for the 2003 Oscar was "the biggest injustice in the history of the Academy".
i thought the reason for this was explained thoroughly, and accepted by everybody. geez.
Just watched this on my computer today, I really wish I could have seen it on the big screen... I hope Miramax still plans to do a re-release near Oscar season, it seems like such a theatrical movie. I was impressed by it... it's a great achievement in filmmaking, probably the best of the decade so far. But there were a few things that were left to be desired... (SPOILERS) the ending didn't feel like it wrapped up much about the narrator. It sort of felt like they just said, "alright, the movie's over, and, uh, yeah, now the narrator has a job at the newspaper, so... the end." I realize the movie was more about the slum itself, and not really the narrarator but it felt like it shifted focus a couple of times. And what about the girl he was on the beach with? She was with the hip hoodlum guy, but then what happened to her? (note my inability to remember character's names)
So the basic problem was that the movie seemed to be about the slums, but sometimes it seemed like it was about the characters themselves, and then it would flip back to the general picture sort of thing, and leave the viewer at a loss. But overall I thought it was fantastic. I think I might like it better if I see it in a theater or at least on DVD because the compression wasn't so great on the file I had.
City of God: Extended Edition: Revista de Cinema reports that Director Fernando Meirelles is preparing a special version of his acclaimed "City of God" to be broadcast as a four-part mini-series on Brazilian television in 2004. The mini-series will incorporate scenes not used for the theatrical release.
argh! tricked. i thought for sure, the dvd release had been announced since the topic alive again! damnit. the fucking thing came out 8 months ago, and they havent even announced the release date yet. this is torture.
Quote from: themodernage02argh! tricked. i thought for sure, the dvd release had been announced since the topic alive again! damnit. the fucking thing came out 8 months ago, and they havent even announced the release date yet. this is torture.
With the Oscar push later this year, you can probably plan that the DVD won't be out till next year.
Lund Directing "Lil' Romeo and Lil' Juliet"
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
"City of God" co-director Katia Lund has been tapped by MGM and Artists Production Group to direct the Lil' Romeo-starrer "Lil' Romeo and Lil' Juliet".
Originally set up as a pitch, the project is a teenage/hip-hop take on Shakespeare's classic "Romeo and Juliet", with the violence in the original tale expressed through music and dance. Lund is expected to take a serious approach to the material, with a realistic approach to the gang lifestyle, much like her work in "City of God".
Dallas Jackson penned the screenplay, with another writer expected to board the project shortly to do a rewrite.
cool, "Lil' Romeo Must Die."
so what's the deal with City of God? does anyone know if it's gonna be rereleased during the end of the year or not? i just checked imdb and there's no word on another release. i also haven't read anything about a rerelease in the fall preview issues of premiere or entertainment weekly.
This movie is still playing in theaters! I saw it back in March in Dallas. While I was in the theater, I could have sworn that a guy who looked just like PTA was in front of me. I was sitting right behind him and basically just looked at him throughout the whole movie. When the movie was over and the lights went up, I saw the man get up and I got a quick look at his face. It wasn't him...but it was close!
i just watched this film again and realized how really great it was... i thought it was great the first time, but after seeing it again, i realized i have not seen a movie this good in a long time.
is it true that meirelles(sp?) didnt make any money out of the movie, that he sold the rights to it all?
Well this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000D9PNX/104-3829558-2266308?v=glance&s=dvd) slipped under the radar without an announcement.
waaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! :-D :-D
this is weird though, barnes and noble and dvd empire and best buy have dec. 16th?
Quote from: MacGuffinWell this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000D9PNX/104-3829558-2266308?v=glance&s=dvd) slipped under the radar without an announcement.
:!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:
Hot damn!!!! Good good good good good news......
HA! Netflix still has it listed for Feb.
good news
"Dude, I think I just filled the cup."
Quote from: RegularKarateNetflix still has it listed for Feb.
Looks like they are correct, although Amazon hasn't updated their release date:
City of God on 2/17/04Acclaimed film also comes with a one-hour documentary.
On February 17, 2004, Miramax Home Entertainment will release the highly-acclaimed City Of God, the story of crime and punishment inside the gangs of Rio de Janeiro's slums, on DVD for a suggested price of $29.99.
The film's unflinching look at the Rio slums has been hailed by international audiences as a triumph of cinema, earning a Golden Globe nomination for Best Foreign Language Film (2003) and winning the American Film Institute's Festival Audience award (2002).
The film is set in the Cidade de Deus (City of God) housing project that's been infested by crime and drugs, making it one of the most dangerous places in Rio de Janeiro. The story focuses on two boys, Rocket and Lil Dice, growing up in this violent neighborhood and doing what they can to survive.
There isn't much detail on the DVD, other than a 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen print, Dolby Digital audio and a one-hour bonus feature, News From A Personal War.
that sucks, i've never seen it. now i have to wait until february for this and 'kill bill: vol.2'; yet, it will be a good month in a month of typically boring films.
wait, didn't this movie come out last year? and it's won't be on video til next year??
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.digitalcity.com%2Fmff_takefive%2Ftopmeirelles&hash=64490ad61d1c668907632a28d1b43307543c05be)
Fernando Meirelles's City of God captures life in one of Rio de Janeiro's most notorious favelas (or slums) with the brutal realism of a modern-day war film and the bravura style of a visionary new filmmaker. "It is a war movie," Meirelles insists of his film, only the soldiers here are streetwise Brazilian kids who learn to kill before they hit puberty, and the turf under dispute amounts to little more than ghetto streets carved up and claimed by teen drug dealers.
Adapted from the book by Paulo Lins, City of God tells the story of a neighborhood under siege from within. In the realm of Rio's godforsaken Cidade de Deus, children are born into sin and must fight to reclaim their innocence. That outlook may come as a rude awakening for American audiences, who aren't accustomed to watching young people face such hardship in Hollywood films. (Hey kid, you say you see dead people? So what? That's nothing compared to the carnage these children face everyday.) But Meirelles's film ultimately belongs to the location itself -- the director actually began his professional life as an architect -- though you can't tell the story of a place like this without acknowledging its fallen angels. To better understand Meirelles's searing new perspective, it helps to look at the films that have influenced him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iracema
(1976, dir: Jorge Bondanzky, Orlando Senna, starring: Edna De Cassia, Paulo César Peréio)
When I saw this film for the first time, I was in school studying architecture. This is one of the films that made me decide I wanted to do films. [It may be] very obscure for you, but for me it's a huge reference. It's a kind of docudrama about a little Indian girl crossing a road in the Amazon with a truck driver. It's a written story, but it feels like a documentary. Besides the truck driver, all the other actors were amateurs, and the girl was a real prostitute, a 13-year-old prostitute. Sometimes you think you're watching a documentary, and then you realize it's something that was written. They say their lines, their dialogue, and suddenly the documentary invades the film. You don't know if it's acting or if the sequences are real. It's really an amazing work. On City of God, [co-director KatÃ-a Lund and I] did 2,000 interviews in a lot of slums in Rio, and we picked 200 boys. They were boys that were interested in doing a workshop for actors. We didn't even tell them that we were going to do a feature. After six months, when we finished this workshop, we took our main characters [from that group].
Secrets & Lies
(1996, dir: Mike Leigh, starring: Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Brenda Blethyn)
In this film, Mike Leigh didn't even have a script before beginning. Working with [Blethyn and Jean-Baptiste], he discovered his story and came up with all the dialogue, so the two actresses are the authors of the film. Mike Leigh has these incredible emotional moments. It just seems very real, very naturalistic. This kind of work with actors was a good reference for me. Instead of telling the actors on City of God, "you must say this line and your reaction must be like that," I would let the actors create the dialogue and let them find their own emotions, and that's the same way Mike Leigh works. All the actors [who are] white or older than 30 are professional. All the others are kind of unknown actors in Brazil, and all the boys are amateurs. We didn't give them the script. We just explained to them what was the intention of each sequence and the intention of their characters, and we let them improvise the dialogue, and by improvising over and over, that's how we came up with all the scenes. They're saying their own words.
Nashville
(1975, dir: Robert Altman, starring: Lily Tomlin, Ned Beatty)
Altman knows how to handle a lot of stories at the same time, how to include a lot of characters and make you interested in all the stories. It's really amazing how he does that. I watched some of his films while we were writing to see how he can handle so many stories at the same time. Before beginning my rehearsals, I had already [written] four versions of the script. I knew precisely how many sequences I wanted to do and the intentions for each sequence. I said [to the actors], "Okay, here in the beginning of the sequence, you're in this situation. In the end, you must kill this guy and say this to this other one. [It doesn't] matter what you do in the middle, but this is how it must begin and this is how it must finish." The thing is that all those boys knew much more than me or KatÃ-a about violence and about this environment because they live in favelas. All of them have friends or brothers or cousins who were drug dealers before. That's why I decided to work with non-professional actors, with boys from those communities, because I knew that they could help me a lot.
Goodfellas
(1990, dir: Martin Scorsese, starring: Robert De Niro, Ray Liotta)
I think City of God has a lot to do with Goodfellas because, like Goodfellas, it's about a boy explaining to the audience how the Mafia in Brazil works. But actually, I didn't try to do a Brazilian Goodfellas. I have a lot of characters, and I have somebody outside the crime telling the story because that's how it is in the book. In the book, Paulo Lins tells the story. He was a guy who lived in City of God. Both films are shot in very different ways, but the script [is similar] because we adapted the book. Both films happen over a long period of time. Sometimes the film goes back and forth, but it's always to explain. I didn't really think about Pulp Fiction because I think Tarantino's intentions when he changes the reel in the projector are the opposite of my intentions. He does it just for fun. It's like a game he's playing with the audience, to create a kind of confusion for them. In my case, it was the opposite. Each time I go back, it was not to [create] confusion, but to explain something, to make it as clear as possible.
Besieged
(1998, dir: Bernardo Bertolucci, starring: Thandie Newton, David Thewlis)
One thing I love in Bertolucci is the way he shows space, the way he uses lenses. At the beginning of the story, he uses all telephotos. This guy [David Thewlis] lives in a house. There's a lot of stairs and walls and textures, but you don't understand the space. Watching the film, little by little, he begins to use wider lenses, and you begin to understand that house. It goes wider and wider until the last sequence in the film, which is the first time you see the whole house. You finally understand everything. It's amazing how he works with this metaphor of showing the space related to the character. In City of God, we used only wide lenses, so in the first part of the film, when you see City of God, you see perspective, you see skyline, you see those streets. There's order, you understand the space, it's very clear. Towards the end of the film, we begin to use telephotos. You don't see sky any more, you don't see perspectives, you don't understand. There's only a bunch of boys against those walls, like they're being trapped. The City of God becomes a jail for them. There's no horizon. But that's the story I was telling, the story of losing control, of disorganization, so I used the space to show this. I'm an architect. I love space, you know.
Finally, somebody who understands how amazing Besieged is.
Spoilers herein.
I just saw City of God, and thought it was nothing special. I trudged through GT's lengthy praise, and still, didn't see anything special. Maybe I missed something in those long paragraphs. ;)
Anyway, to me, City of God played like a sensationalist docudrama with annoying camerawork, film trickery, and other filmic techniques used only to support the story very sparingly. I say this because with simple editing the same effects could probably be achieved. The handheld camerawork, for the first time in a film, was a pain to my eyes. And I had to look away from the screen during the strobelight scene because it hurt my eyes so much. Alienating your audience like this is never a good thing.
There is very little art to this film because it exists in the realm of docudrama, so the only "art" is in its grittiness (byproduct of the setting), the setting itself (beaches and the "beautiful" slums; ironic really), and the comparison to Goodfellas. The art GT mentions is in the editing, but the thing is, if it was artistic, someone with a more discerning eye would've picked up on it. Yet no one else does this. The only art in this film is at the beginning with the chicken, and then the time warps a la Goodfellas (which, like Kael says, is merely an average movie), and the opening/jumpback at the end/subtitles. For the record, some of it really did remind me of a Guy Ritchie flick (in hindsight). That's not a good thing.
As mentioned before, there is the split screen element where one part of the screen pushes the other over to show simultaneous action. Here is where the power of editing comes in, but it is really creating nothing new, as it has been done most notably in Buffalo '66 (and less notably, briefly, in The Rules of Attraction and L'auberge espagnole, IIRC), where windows actually open over Billy Brown's head, etc. And that is one of the most truly unique instances of editing I myself have seen, though I am unsure of whether it's been done before.
The unique thing about the situation I'm viewing this movie in is I just watched Badlands. And yeah, comparisons can definitely be drawn between those two films in a way. The thing about Badlands is even though the characters were despicable, I still was very interested in them. I don't know what it is about Malick's direction here, but he got me engaged. Maybe it was Spacek's voiceover. I don't know.
The bottom line is, there was a failure to engage here by Meirelles. It didn't break the film for me, but it detached me from caring, because, just like with Goodfellas, I just didn't give a damn about the protagonist. There really were no sympathetic characters in the film. They were all despicable. And that intangible element in Badlands that made me care was sorely lacking here.
As for the Leaving Las Vegas comparison, well, I wasn't too much of a cineast when I first saw the film (and I saw it on the same weekend as Requiem for a Dream; talk about a depressing weekend). Because of this, I could only appreciate Leaving Las Vegas on a superficial level. But recently, the film has been quite praised here, and I do believe for one, it deserves it, and two, I should revisit the film. I think the comparison is quite interesting, but not because of the editing.
The editing in all these films is still way too conventional to be considered revolutionary. I can't remember the last time I saw a film where the editing was unconventional, but there is a film on the tip of my tongue, and I'll mention it when it comes to me. Godard's A bout de souffle (Breathless) comes to mind, like other French New Wave films, but really that film is nothing special either. The story is an intriguing one, but the only thing that really stands out is the 20-minute bedroom conversation the protagonist and his girl share. These things are what's important to me: character interaction, not flashy filmic techniques.
I can't really see how a film like this can be a favorite of anyone's, so I'd like some clarifications on this. That is, how could it possibly move you, personally, when for me, I couldn't relate? The goal of a film like this is to bring you in so you feel something. That should be a goal of any film: to bring you in to that world. This one didn't for me, so how did it for you, and how did it move you? And what's more is, why is the film so worth sitting through again as one of the "best ever" would be?
I look at films in terms of scenes. The expression "three good scenes, no bad ones" comes to mind. There are memorable scenes in City of God (and some bad ones), but to what end? The whole film seems like a lather, rinse, repeat of the same theme: that violence leads to destruction, and for some it's inescapable. It also serves as a wakeup call that kids so young participate in this violence, but as we're learning in the states in the past several years, that too is no surprise.
One also has to take into consideration what feelings these films evoke as a whole, as a sum total of scenes. I recall Lilja 4-ever, a wholly depressing film. It never let up, and hope for its characters was only found in death. At least with Lilja, I felt something for the characters. But even the protagonist in this film had his priorities out of whack. So it's incredibly odd yet fitting that I rate this film the same as Lilja. *** (7/10)
i think that gt retracted his initial praising to death of this, and just said it was good but not what he thought. i think you let the hype ruin it for you. but, after a review where youre ripping it apart its still 7/10. so that means good. but it seems like you wanted to be hard on it. like "IMPRESS ME MOVIE!" you know? like, i dont think theres been 5 better films this year, so who cares if its not the best of all time? what is?
by the way, how did you just now see this? on your computer? theatre actually still playing it? other region dvd?
Saw it on the big screen. My school has a film program where a committe organizes a schedule of films to bring to screen for the student body. Last week it was Finding Nemo and Spirited Away. This week, City of God and Whale Rider.
I didn't want to be hard on the film at all. I go in to every film hoping it will be good, but yeah, I guess the hype did get to me a bit, and that's why all the questions for GT since he is generally so reluctant to praise anything.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaI look at films in terms of scenes. The expression "three good scenes, no bad ones" comes to mind. There are memorable scenes in City of God (and some bad ones), but to what end? The whole film seems like a lather, rinse, repeat of the same theme: that violence leads to destruction, and for some it's inescapable. It also serves as a wakeup call that kids so young participate in this violence, but as we're learning in the states in the past several years, that too is no surprise.
Well, the expression is "three great scenes, no bad ones" but I never believed in that theory anyways. The center to why I love City of God so much is the film is an explosion of editing for the effect of the viewer just upon viewing, thus a superficial film. City of God brings the world of chaos alive through its filmmaking. Its nice to say all films should go for character depth, but how could someone observe Natural Born Killers in terms of character depth? Some films exist outside that purpose. City of God is mainly about itself and the effect it has as a canvas of filmmaking on effecting the audience.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaThe handheld camerawork, for the first time in a film, was a pain to my eyes. And I had to look away from the screen during the strobelight scene because it hurt my eyes so much. Alienating your audience like this is never a good thing.
Its really just your personal taste. I, for one, am sure Godardian would respond the same way due to his problems with Oliver Stone and his manic editing. Every film alienates some people. You can't avvoid that.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaAs mentioned before, there is the split screen element where one part of the screen pushes the other over to show simultaneous action. Here is where the power of editing comes in, but it is really creating nothing new, as it has been done most notably in Buffalo '66 (and less notably, briefly, in The Rules of Attraction and L'auberge espagnole, IIRC), where windows actually open over Billy Brown's head, etc. And that is one of the most truly unique instances of editing I myself have seen, though I am unsure of whether it's been done before.
I agree nothing new comes in the editing as is accomplished with Breathless (you mention this example later). I don't think that is the purpose though. The film is an explosion of every editing technique to come out of the last 30 years into one film. Citizen Kane was seen as every filmmaking technique in cinema from Birth of a Nation on applied to one film. Its purpose is its effect.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaThere is very little art to this film because it exists in the realm of docudrama, so the only "art" is in its grittiness (byproduct of the setting), the setting itself (beaches and the "beautiful" slums; ironic really), and the comparison to Goodfellas. The art GT mentions is in the editing, but the thing is, if it was artistic, someone with a more discerning eye would've picked up on it. Yet no one else does this. The only art in this film is at the beginning with the chicken, and then the time warps a la Goodfellas (which, like Kael says, is merely an average movie), and the opening/jumpback at the end/subtitles. For the record, some of it really did remind me of a Guy Ritchie flick (in hindsight). That's not a good thing.
So, for it to be more artistic, it would have picked up on the irony of the natural beauty and the slums right next to it? I agree it is ironic and this is all over the country of Brazil in general (I've been there), but I don't see going for that as the only artistic decision up to the filmmakers, or really the best one even. Going for that goes to symbolism, which I believe in general to be usually a bad thing in movies. This example of irony in Brazil specifically to me smells of easy symbolism in order to reduce the work.
Then you mention the comparison to Goodfellas. Yes, things are there to be compared, but the bulk of the film seems to be an explosion of every editing technique driven into the viewer for the best superficial effect it can have. The Goodfellas inspiration seems to be outer linings of the film and just connecting the stories together. The film mostly operates for its explosion of editing and filmmaking to effect the viewer just on viewing it.
Quote from: Onomatopoeiahe bottom line is, there was a failure to engage here by Meirelles. It didn't break the film for me, but it detached me from caring, because, just like with Goodfellas, I just didn't give a damn about the protagonist. There really were no sympathetic characters in the film. They were all despicable. And that intangible element in Badlands that made me care was sorely lacking here.
I think your lack of identification goes back to the filmmaking. The lead character who is trying to be a photographer, surely cannot be seen as a 'descipable character'.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaI can't really see how a film like this can be a favorite of anyone's, so I'd like some clarifications on this. That is, how could it possibly move you, personally, when for me, I couldn't relate? The goal of a film like this is to bring you in so you feel something. That should be a goal of any film: to bring you in to that world. This one didn't for me, so how did it for you, and how did it move you? And what's more is, why is the film so worth sitting through again as one of the "best ever" would be?
You seem to have problems with superficial films and think all films should go for character depth and all, but I consider these films to be some of the greatest films of all time but yet very superficial: Citizen Kane, 8 1/2 and West Side Story. City of God is in that category for me.
I do
still think City of God is one of the best films ever made.
i didnt find most of the characters to be despicable actually. with the exception of Lil' Ze. everyone else was certainly pretty sympathetic werent they? what was so unlikable about them?
Quote from: Onomatopoeiaa sensationalist docudrama with annoying camerawork, film trickery, and other filmic techniques
Hmm, that's a shame, because I thought that this was finally the one movie that took the whole mtv hyper generation music video style and perfectly integrated it so that it became transcendent -- and surely a proper leap forward in this kind of film language.
I too think it employed the mtv-style techniques in a marvellous way, in a way not at all pretentious. Remember when the world saw Baz Luhrmann's R + J for the first time? Well, I think City of God is different because the mtv-style (as it is popularly dubbed) has been used in a more seamless way. It was not surprise for me to learn that the director of City used to make tv commercials.
I loved the (dark) humour; as when the likeable hoodlum tells Lil Ze, after Lil Ze's rant about killing everyone, he needs to get himself a woman.
Mentions about the editing also intrigued me. At the start of the film, the knife that is being sharpened is literally cutting the film reel, cutting up the images for us. That itself was a chilling scene even though there was no violence at all.
foray
hey Onomatopoeia
i think you need to watch it again. first time i watched it i thought it was good but i couldnt seem to see why it was so great. my mind was just following this one track thinking about the film... second time i watched i realized wow i i havent seem a film this good in a long time and was kicking myself for underrating it. it really is milestone in film making. maybe upon second viewing youll like it better:P
it goes w/o saying that i'll be blind buying this one.
Quote from: ©bradit goes w/o saying that i'll be blind buying this one.
Yeah, me too. The acclaim here reached a roar long ago; otherwise, I hadn't heard of this one.
I'm just glad I caught it while it was in town for that one week. One week!
I'd hesitate for anyone who hasn't seen it to "blind buy" it. It's a really, really good movie, but it wasn't a religious experience for me.
I mean, if a movie doesn't get me to join a cult, y'know you have to rethink, "was it as good as people say?" I don't know. I just drink the red kool-aid when I'm told.
Quote from: godardianQuote from: ©bradit goes w/o saying that i'll be blind buying this one.
Yeah, me too. The acclaim here reached a roar long ago; otherwise, I hadn't heard of this one.
I don't think you'll really like it, Godardian. The acclaim of this film is in the filmmaking and how it roars so loud that it could even tame Oliver Stone at his wildest. I'd suggest renting it first.
Quote from: godardianYeah, me too. The acclaim here reached a roar long ago; otherwise, I hadn't heard of this one.
It's more political than most people are letting on... I think you'd love it.
Speaking of holocaust movies (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=4770&start=15), this would have been a good one. (if that makes sense)
Godardian likes good movies, and so, should like this.
Blind buy away. It's a gem.
Quote from: SoNowThenGodardian likes good movies, and so, should like this.
Blind buy away. It's a gem.
Ever hear Godardian's opinion on Oliver Stone?
JB, how do you see this really as a political movie? I see it touching on a hot button issue for Brazil, but I don't see it as political.
Stone's only made a few great films.
Quote from: SoNowThenStone's only made a few great films.
Yea, but he wasn't impressed with even JFK.
:shock:
....oh.... well... that's just wrong
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Ever hear Godardian's opinion on Oliver Stone?
JB, how do you see this really as a political movie? I see it touching on a hot button issue for Brazil, but I don't see it as political.
all movies are political.
Quote from: ©bradQuote from: The Gold Trumpet
Ever hear Godardian's opinion on Oliver Stone?
JB, how do you see this really as a political movie? I see it touching on a hot button issue for Brazil, but I don't see it as political.
all movies are political.
In a way, I completely agree with this.
Quoteall movies are political.
Elaborate please cBRAD. Explain to us, how "all movies are political."
?????????
chris
well, all art in general is political. even the absence of politics in a film is a political move, for essenstially u r saying "let's not rock the boat." we're gonna sell this to as many ppl as possible w/o offending anyone, and we can do that by leaving out any political inclinations whatsoever.
Quote from: ©bradwell, all art in general is political. even the absence of politics in a film is a political move, for essenstially u r saying "let's not rock the boat." we're gonna sell this to as many ppl as possible w/o offending anyone, and we can do that by leaving out any political inclinations whatsoever.
I like that as general basis for films, but I don't think it specificies to what City of God is really about. One could say the film is historical, but so much of it concentrates on exploiting the chaos of the slums to really be about the history of the slums. Withstanding some little political comments toward the end with media and violence, the movie mainly is a survival story for the protaganist.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI don't think it specificies to what City of God is really about.
It's about poverty and violence. For me, at least.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: The Gold TrumpetI don't think it specificies to what City of God is really about.
It's about poverty and violence. For me, at least.
Understood, but I see them more as elements in the movie and not really followed through. The story to the movie isn't even that good. Its more exploitive of violence than anything else. The filmmaking though and the effect it has is magnificent.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: The Gold TrumpetI don't think it specificies to what City of God is really about.
It's about poverty and violence. For me, at least.
Understood, but I see them more as elements in the movie and not really followed through. The story to the movie isn't even that good. Its more exploitive of violence than anything else. The filmmaking though and the effect it has is magnificent.
well, i have yet to see the movie, but wouldn't u say it was political on a civilian level?
Quote from: ©bradwell, i have yet to see the movie, but wouldn't u say it was political on a civilian level?
No. Simply because I don't believe the narrative follows through on taking the ideas JB said really serious. The movie is like Tarantino covered 30 years of poverty and violence in the slums and was forced to be semi realistic about it. He wouldn't go into fantasy, but he also wouldn't investigate the problems.
Yeah, it woulda been trite to me if he would've tried to explain the whys and hows. I prefer the what and where.
Quote from: SoNowThenYeah, it woulda been trite to me if he would've tried to explain the whys and hows. I prefer the what and where.
I agree... but I think JB and CBrad will agree with me when I say that the what and the where can be just as political, if not more so, than the whys and the hows (look at
Safe, a brilliant film that can easily be considerd political- it has a bounty of the former and almost none of the latter). We have to distinguish between a "preachy" film and a "political" one- the truly effective political film will never come across as solely a celluloid election pamphlet.
I mean, if
City of God focuses on violence and poverty and doesn't give you its answers, leaving you to ponder the whys and the hows, and is apparently a breathtaking film, I'd say that's very effective on a political level, much more so than if you were given the chance to dismiss the film for being too preachy or offering too-fallible solutions to the problems it depicts.
Quote from: godardianQuote from: SoNowThenYeah, it woulda been trite to me if he would've tried to explain the whys and hows. I prefer the what and where.
I agree... but I think JB and CBrad will agree with me when I say that the what and the where can be just as political, if not more so, than the whys and the hows (look at Safe, a brilliant film that can easily be considerd political- it has a bounty of the former and almost none of the latter). We have to distinguish between a "preachy" film and a "political" one- the truly effective political film will never come across as solely a celluloid election pamphlet.
exactly.
the "why" is in the subtext. it doesn't necessarily have to be spelled out for you.
I agree. Except for cbrad's last statement. The "why" isn't in the subtext. You can think about it and look into it yourself, but if it was subtextual, it would have been purposely woven into the film, which it wasn't (or if it was, I didn't catch it, anyway).
I see things more along the GT line of transcendence through style.
Quote from: godardianI mean, if City of God focuses on violence and poverty and doesn't give you its answers, leaving you to ponder the whys and the hows, and is apparently a breathtaking film, I'd say that's very effective on a political level, much more so than if you were given the chance to dismiss the film for being too preachy or offering too-fallible solutions to the problems it depicts.
Now you're just assuming what I meant when you really need to see the film first. The film really investigates nothing to even give you any "whys" or "hows" to think about. It simply isn't about that. The violence and poverty is just platform to convey the chaos that runs through this world and Rocket's life. The story is slim and the filmmaking quite large so the effect of what the violence and disorder is felt on a superficial level. I never said the film had to be in the context of a political pamphlet to be political, but the film makes no attempt to really dig into this world at all.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB0000D9PNX.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=3764ddc9de047538fbe428c5b0434cfc6733aad8)
"City Of God" will be available to own on the 17th of February and should retail at around $29.99. The film itself will be presented in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen along with a Dolby Digital 5.1 track.
beat this ...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-eu.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB0000DH96B.08.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=7e78423f6be709121262254f0647fc5d99fa0771)
QuoteThe story is slim and the filmmaking quite large so the effect of what the violence and disorder is felt on a superficial level. I never said the film had to be in the context of a political pamphlet to be political, but the film makes no attempt to really dig into this world at all.
I don't understand how the violence and disorder is felt on a superficial or shallow level?????
This film is nothing new as far as structure, KIDS could be a similiar comparison because it dosen't rely on a real engaging story but more of a window into that world like City of God.
QuoteI never said the film had to be in the context of a political pamphlet to be political, but the film makes no attempt to really dig into this world at all.
What do you mean by "the film makes no attempt to really dig into this world at all"....?
chris
it's a political movie simply because people are wondering the hows and the whys, and that there's even a debate about if there is a how and the why or not. people don't talk about the hows and the whys in the world of t3 or pirates of carribean.
I don't think city of god needs to bear any responsibility to "investigate" just because its subject matter (kids running the slum) is a bit intriguing. It's told from an authoritative, insider's point of view, mostly without much reference to the outside world, and his investigation can only go as far as all that the character's experienced. And in that sense, he's done as much investigation as he could (giving the backstories and histories to all the major changes in the City of God), but he's just a kid in the slum trying to get out, the hows and the whys aren't his problem. They're the problem of foreign eyes after they've listened to his side of the story.
To accuse this film of being "apolitical" or "exploitative" is like accusing Lord of the Flies for being apolitical and exploitative. That book is missing all the things Gold Trumpet is accusing City of God of missing.
Quote from: chuckhimselfobeat this ...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-eu.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB0000DH96B.08.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=7e78423f6be709121262254f0647fc5d99fa0771)
That's great... and a better representation of what the movie really is.
Quote from: peteit's a political movie simply because people are wondering the hows and the whys, and that there's even a debate about if there is a how and the why or not. people don't talk about the hows and the whys in the world of t3 or pirates of carribean.
I never liked that argument. Its rests judgement of art not on art but on the people reacting to it, which couldn't be more untrustworthy. Trash films, like Matrix: Reloaded, have been given validity because of this. People wouldn't talk about the whys and hows of T3 or Pirates, but even those films didn't take themselves serious. Just think of the number of bad films that do take themselves serious and could allow people to take the same jump into discussion with something like Matrix: Reloaded. Umberto Eco labeled this argument as one of the most basic in over interpretation because it has nothing to do with the work itself.
Quote from: peteI don't think city of god needs to bear any responsibility to "investigate" just because its subject matter (kids running the slum) is a bit intriguing. It's told from an authoritative, insider's point of view, mostly without much reference to the outside world, and his investigation can only go as far as all that the character's experienced. And in that sense, he's done as much investigation as he could (giving the backstories and histories to all the major changes in the City of God), but he's just a kid in the slum trying to get out, the hows and the whys aren't his problem. They're the problem of foreign eyes after they've listened to his side of the story.
I think you're being much too nice to this film. I don't believe this film is simply documenting what is taking place, but using the story and history as canvas for an explosive film that doesn't get outside what is already general structure to Hollywood. The film in its story is quite comparable to Goodfellas and even that film was a Hollywood-esque film for its director. With this, stories and truths to what really happened are made quite flexible so it can fit the stylistic mold this director wants the film to take. I think this film is quite brutal and honest, but within a mold that is packaged too nicely for
just documenting what it knows. It would have been a documentary instead to get all the history in or a simple story film to get integrity to really conveying the feeling of this place.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: peteit's a political movie simply because people are wondering the hows and the whys, and that there's even a debate about if there is a how and the why or not. people don't talk about the hows and the whys in the world of t3 or pirates of carribean.
I never liked that argument. Its rests judgement of art not on art but on the people reacting to it, which couldn't be more untrustworthy. Trash films, like Matrix: Reloaded, have been given validity because of this. People wouldn't talk about the whys and hows of T3 or Pirates, but even those films didn't take themselves serious. Just think of the number of bad films that do take themselves serious and could allow people to take the same jump into discussion with something like Matrix: Reloaded. Umberto Eco labeled this argument as one of the most basic in over interpretation because it has nothing to do with the work itself.
Quote from: peteI don't think city of god needs to bear any responsibility to "investigate" just because its subject matter (kids running the slum) is a bit intriguing. It's told from an authoritative, insider's point of view, mostly without much reference to the outside world, and his investigation can only go as far as all that the character's experienced. And in that sense, he's done as much investigation as he could (giving the backstories and histories to all the major changes in the City of God), but he's just a kid in the slum trying to get out, the hows and the whys aren't his problem. They're the problem of foreign eyes after they've listened to his side of the story.
I think you're being much too nice to this film. I don't believe this film is simply documenting what is taking place, but using the story and history as canvas for an explosive film that doesn't get outside what is already general structure to Hollywood. The film in its story is quite comparable to Goodfellas and even that film was a Hollywood-esque film for its director. With this, stories and truths to what really happened are made quite flexible so it can fit the stylistic mold this director wants the film to take. I think this film is quite brutal and honest, but within a mold that is packaged too nicely for just documenting what it knows. It would have been a documentary instead to get all the history in or a simple story film to get integrity to really conveying the feeling of this place.
the movie like, kicks ass. word, dawgs.
gold trumpet- I like your point about matrix series viewed as political simply because fanboys read too deeply into it. But that is a different case entirely, City of God is political because YOU, Gold Trumpet, whose opinion I respect, wonder about the hows and the whys. so I'm not resting the judgment of art on the people's reaction, but rather the artist's intention, as evident in another person who "gets it"'s reaction.
And it sounds like you disliked the City of God the same reason I disliked Fight Club and American Beauty, about the "Hollywood edge" that is predicatably unpredictable, if that makes any sense. But I see City of God more as using the eye-candy techniques to get the stories out there, so that people first of all, will want to see it and secondly, it provides the story relevancy to the rest of the world that wouldn't normally give a shit about what happens in a Brazillian slum during the 60s 70s and the 80s. Children killing children in a newsport or even a documentary like Bowling for Columbine will invariably seem distant to most of the viewers, that's why the original City of God embraced a novel format, and the film embraces a narrative format, otherwise it'll always seem like a news piece. I think the story is much more brutal than anything Hollywood or any "anti-Hollywood-Hollywood" films like a Danny Boyle picture of an Arnofski picture. This movie goes out of its way to embrace a hip sensibility, because it wants people to see something they'd never otherwise see in a movie.
It is much easier to identify with a fictional insecure adolescent character than an actual inhabitant of a distant ghetto (or even ghettos next to your neighborhood).
But I do understand where you're coming from and understand that arguments probalby can't charm you into liking this movie, even though I hope you'd give it another chance.
Quote from: petegold trumpet- I like your point about matrix series viewed as political simply because fanboys read too deeply into it. But that is a different case entirely, City of God is political because YOU, Gold Trumpet, whose opinion I respect, wonder about the hows and the whys. so I'm not resting the judgment of art on the people's reaction, but rather the artist's intention, as evident in another person who "gets it"'s reaction.
I don't know if I ever said I wondered about the whys and hows in this movie, but always said the film really gave none. Its achievement (for me) is really superficial. And even if I did wonder about the whys and hows, I am no authoritive figure to end any discussion. Explanation of the film and how it is political is still needed.
Quote from: peteAnd it sounds like you disliked the City of God the same reason I disliked Fight Club and American Beauty, about the "Hollywood edge" that is predicatably unpredictable, if that makes any sense. But I see City of God more as using the eye-candy techniques to get the stories out there, so that people first of all, will want to see it and secondly, it provides the story relevancy to the rest of the world that wouldn't normally give a shit about what happens in a Brazillian slum during the 60s 70s and the 80s.
I think saying the film uses the eye-candy techniques to make the film relevant and accessable to modern movie goers is translating the subject in the most superficial way. To really make it relevant and accessable would be to make the humanistic concerns of the slums understandable for modern movie goers.
Quote from: peteBut I do understand where you're coming from and understand that arguments probalby can't charm you into liking this movie, even though I hope you'd give it another chance.
But, I do like this film! I've been the biggest supporter of this film through out this entire thread and it is by far the best film of 2003. Thing is, I am also fighting what I believe is over interpretation by a lot of other people. My stance on the film it is by far the best explosian of filmmaking in many years and provides one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever had just watching a film. I believe the greatness of the film is in the effect it gives just from viewing it and not looking at it in depth like other art films.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calsmodels.com%2Fimages%2FXIXAX%2Fcityofgod.jpg&hash=bc4bd9d147a31a4303369d3587d4cf7be1125fd4)
dvd's been around for like a year now.
oh right, i'm the one ahead this time. strange feeling.
oops. that's great that you liked it. I don't really examine it too deeply either, I still think it's a bit more compassionate and less exploitative than Lord of the Flies, but hey, as long as you like it, man.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
But, I do like this film! I've been the biggest supporter of this film through out this entire thread and it is by far the best film of 2003. Thing is, I am also fighting what I believe is over interpretation by a lot of other people. My stance on the film it is by far the best explosian of filmmaking in many years and provides one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever had just watching a film. I believe the greatness of the film is in the effect it gives just from viewing it and not looking at it in depth like other art films.
did i read somewhere this was delayed too now, or am i imagining things?
http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=4114&start=0
EDIT: hey! you even gave an opinion on that....
bizarrely enough, I was in the local indie rental store, and they ALREADY have a copy of this. The counter guy said they have some super-cool supplier man who hooks them up. Though this looked like a suspect version, as the jacket listed the director as only Kátia Lund...
ahh yes, i thought i remembered freaking out. well, WHAT THE FUCK!?!? february has DICK now.
Quote from: themodernage02did i read somewhere this was delayed too now, or am i imagining things?
That was a joke. It's still slated for Feb. 17th.
Quote from: themodernage02ahh yes, i thought i remembered freaking out. well, WHAT THE FUCK!?!? february has DICK now.
it still has my birthday.. :yabbse-undecided:
MacGuffin is cruel. . .
Quote from: CinephileMacGuffin is cruel. . .
It wasn't my joke. Blame Pawbloe.
so there has been no word since it got indefinitely pushed back?
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: CinephileMacGuffin is cruel. . .
It wasn't my joke. Blame Pawbloe.
My apologies.
Pawbloe! SON OF A BITCH! :twisted:
Quote from: themodernage02so there has been no word since it got indefinitely pushed back?
It was never pushed back. Pawbloe was making a joke. It's still coming out Feb. 17th.
ah, i guess i'm a little slow on the take. note to self: never read news from anyone but macguffin ever again.
Oscar pays homage to 'God'
NEW YORK -- What a long, strange pilgrimage to the Oscars it has been for "City of God," Brazilian filmmaker Fernando Meirelles' explosive story of boys growing up in a dangerous neighborhood in Rio de Janeiro. Although the film was submitted for last year's Oscars by Brazil, it failed to earn a nomination as best foreign-language film -- a fact that some insiders attributed to its visceral violence. Miramax Films, which became involved in the project at the script stage, opened the film in U.S. theaters in January 2003. Because of its 2003 theatrical release, the film then became eligible to compete in the other Academy categories. Critics lauded it, but it never expanded beyond 108 theaters. Nevertheless, Miramax has kept it in limited release for more than a year. By year's end, "God" still had not climbed above the $5 million mark, but it topped the foreign-film list of a handful of critics groups and was nominated for a Golden Globe as best import. And now -- a year after the Academy first turned a thumbs down on it -- "City of God" has re-emerged with four nominations in major categories -- best director, best adapted screenplay, best film editing and best cinematography.
"I'm not surprised," said Meirelles, who spent a decade in commercials before venturing into film. Speaking Tuesday from London, where he is prepping his next project, he quickly contradicted himself, adding, "I am shocked! (Last year), I thought that this was not the kind of film for the Academy."
In May, Miramax Films co-chairman Harvey Weinstein made a stand -- literally -- at the Festival de Cannes on "City's" behalf. At the mini-major's annual international distributors' luncheon by the seashore, he vowed to rerelease Meirelles' movie in the United States in December for Academy Awards consideration.
"In America, it's doing OK," Weinstein said at Cannes. "And in additional territories too. But I am frustrated, and I am going to rerelease it for Academy season. You never give up on the things you love." The movie mogul even asked his distribution partners to hold back releasing "God" to home video to get the campaign going.
"Harvey was into the film," Meirelles said Tuesday. "We hear a lot of stories about Miramax. But he loves the film, and this is not big business for him. It's much more his (passion) for the movie."
"I'm so proud of 'City of God,' " Weinstein testified Tuesday. "We resisted putting it out on video, and the minute the screener ban was lifted, we sent it out. We worked hard to let Academy members know that though the film wasn't eligible last year, it is eligible in other categories this year. Now, we're going to be putting the movie out on 200 screens, and we'll eventually get that number up to 500 screens."
In recent years, the Academy has become more willing to honor foreign-language films in the major categories. Last year, for example, Sony Pictures Classics pulled off a coup with "Talk to Her," directed by Spanish helmer Pedro Almodovar. Although it was not recognized as the official Oscar foreign-language entry from Spain, the distributor fought back by waging a war in the major categories, which brought Almodovar two nominations -- for best original screenplay and best director -- and a win for screenplay.
Said Meirelles: "The other nominations, in a way, explain the success of ('City'). This film had a lot to do with the actors, and they are all almost amateurs. They are real -- there is a freshness to their acting."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominees react
Tuesday was a big day for Fernando Meirelles. The helmer behind "City of God" received a much-coveted best director nomination and also saw his film receive a best adapted screenplay nomination for Braulio Mantovani. "This is crazy," he said from London, where he is preparing to shoot an adaptation of John Le Carre's "The Constant Gardener." "What is going on over there at the Academy?" Clearly, voters responded to his Brazilian drama and took advantage of a 1999 rule change that allowed a film entered in a foreign-language category in a given year and not nominated to compete in other categories the following year if they have their first U.S. release in that year. Why does he think voters responded well to his film? "I can't compare it to the other films, but 'City of God' has a certain freshness because the actors are not professional (and) the way that it's shot and the editing -- all those things," he said. "I don't feel responsible for that, it's just (that) all the different parts of the movie came together. And Miramax also did good work in rereleasing the film, too."
Daniel Rezende is having an unimaginable January. His work on the first movie he ever edited, "City of God," was Oscar-nominated Tuesday. His third project, Walter Salles' "The Motorcycle Diaries," was a darling of Sundance last week. And all the resulting attention has taken the young editor by complete surprise. "I was going to the gym, and I saw ('City of God' director) Fernando (Meirelles) on the TV. I shouted 'Oh my God!' and everyone looked at me. I went right back home and tried to find out what was going on," he said. He added that he has been besieged with calls ever since. "I couldn't even get a cup of water," he said. "I could just eat toast." Rezende is on location in Canada on director Alfonso Beato's "Dark Water," starring Jennifer Connelly and Tim Roth. "I should be working right now, but I am playing hooky," he said. "This is something that will take me a while to understand."
Quote from: MacGuffinOscar pays homage to 'God'
"I don't feel responsible for that, "
yeah.. wasn't this film co-directed by a chick, Katia Lund? what is going on here, is she invisible?
On a current bootleg box going around in this indie rental place, she's the only one listed as director...
the mystery continues
Quote from: PawbloeCity of God DVD delayed, controversy ensues
that was such a funny joke...
Buena Vista have kindly got in touch with us regarding a delay for the region one release of City of God which stars the likes of Jefechander Suplino, Alice Braga and Emerson Gomes. The film was originally scheduled for a release on the 17th February,
although it has now been put back until the 8th June this year. Presumably this has something to do with the recent Oscar nominations. The retail price will remain at $29.99.
4 more months isnt a big deal.
Quote from: themodernage024 more months isnt a big deal.
in movie fanboy time, that's like 3 years dude.
Quote from: ©bradQuote from: themodernage024 more months isnt a big deal.
in movie fanboy time, that's like 3 years dude.
it was the most intense sarcasm/denial i could muster as i proudly present the WORST NEWS OF THE WHOLE YEAR!
along with kill bill and ed wood. i had a feeling this would happen as soon as i heard about the oscar noms. reading that article really started to worry me. now our worst fears have come true.
Quote from: themodernage02Buena Vista have kindly got in touch with us regarding a delay
Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil Disney Evil
hey wait! i just realized the THREE BIGGEST GEEK FUCK-OVER'S OF THE YEAR (and it's only been a month), are ALL BY MIRAMAX AND DISNEY!!!
KILL BILL 2 and KILL BILL 1 DVD
ED WOOD DVD
CITY OF GOD DVD
and we ain't even talking about the foreign movies they'd butchered.
not to mention their mass child slaughters, and illegal drug trafficking.
don't forget the genocide.
Ah, so funny. As I got up this morning, I thought to myself "oh man, it's like, two weeks until I finally get City Of God".
Guess not.
:cry:
Quote from: themodernage02
Buena Vista have kindly got in touch with us regarding a delay for the region one release of City of God which stars the likes of Jefechander Suplino, Alice Braga and Emerson Gomes. The film was originally scheduled for a release on the 17th February, although it has now been put back until the 8th June this year. Presumably this has something to do with the recent Oscar nominations. The retail price will remain at $29.99.
Psssh. At least mine was funny.
Quote from: Cinephiledon't forget the genocide.
don't forget to kill P's joke.
Well this was released in DVD in Latin America and Europe long time ago... I dont understand why the hell are they delaying this so much... I would think that the Oscar's is a good momentum for them to sell a lot of DVDs here...
Quote from: andykWell this was released in DVD in Latin America and Europe long time ago... I dont understand why the hell are they delaying this so much... I would think that the Oscar's is a good momentum for them to sell a lot of DVDs here...
They haven't even bothered to release Hero at all in North America. I don't know why. Maybe they're trying to get the English dubbing just right :roll:
let's not forget Shaolin Soccer or the fact that cinema paradisio had an hour of it cut.
I bought Hero on DVD in Boston this past summer. All you have to do is special order the DVD from some video store. I am going to do that with City of God. Now that I have to wait until June to buy the darn movie. Hero is a little over rated but a good film (a rip off of Rashomon).
Not to despair, Disney has been served swift revenge (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=449)!
:yabbse-grin:
Quote from: The Big LebowskiI bought Hero on DVD in Boston this past summer. All you have to do is special order the DVD from some video store. I am going to do that with City of God. Now that I have to wait until June to buy the darn movie. Hero is a little over rated but a good film (a rip off of Rashomon).
no way hero's a ripoff of rashomon; its multiple-story structure is pretty different from rashomon's. rashomon was an argument against absolute truth, that there's no one truth, while part of Hero was about seeking that truth beneath passion, loyalty...etc. It's not to say that I liked Hero that much...its script is incredibly weak, especially all of the director's attempt to "intellectualize" martial arts (through weak chess, music, and calligraphy metaphors) because he knows very little about. There's a lot of posturing going on, and oftentimes substitutes graduer with melodrama, but the fight scenes and art direction did a great deal of damage control.
I really wanna see Hero. Is it out on R1 dvd yet?
Quote from: SoNowThenI really wanna see Hero. Is it out on R1 dvd yet?
No. It gets a (limited) theatrical release April 16th.
a bunch of my friends got the DVDs on hkflix.com, I gots mine in chinatown, but just last december miramax sent a notice to all them online shops, about how it's a violation of the US law to sell Hero.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.timeinc.net%2Few%2Fdynamic%2Fimgs%2F040129%2F112447__meirelles_l.jpg&hash=15bb89fcde5ff0c5284585aa7a54bf48031574c6)
Fernando Meirelles didn't expect this. In fact, he thought so little of his Oscar chances that he made other plans for the day of this year's announcements. It was a lunch date with espionage writer John le Carré, whose novel ''The Constant Gardener'' is the basis for Meirelles' next film. But when the 48-year-old director of ''City of God'' found out that his name would be immortalized in Oscar's Class of 2003, Meirelles and his lunch companion cracked open a couple of beers to celebrate. ''I didn't think this was the kind of film the Academy Awards would go for,'' says the Brazilian director, just back from lunch and still quite shocked. ''A film in Portuguese, nominated in four categories -- it's really unusual.''
True. But then again, almost everything about ''City of God'' feels unusual: its slow-building, word-of-mouth success; the unrelenting assault of its documentary-style depiction of the violent slums of Rio de Janeiro; and, most of all, its seemingly out-of-nowhere creator -- the TV and commercials director who more than a few critics have compared to the Martin Scorsese of ''Mean Streets.''
Named after one of Rio's bleakest and most notorious housing projects, ''City of God'' is about the other Brazil -- the squalid shantytowns populated by dead-end kids who run drugs and wave guns before they've hit puberty. Even more unsettling is the fact that many of these kids are nonprofessional performers who aren't really acting. ''All those boys we worked with, they all came from slums,'' says Meirelles, crediting the efforts of ''codirector'' Katia Lund in training the young cast. ''Some of them worked for drug dealers. They knew much more than me about the film I was doing.'' Armed with only his camera, Meirelles is less the director of ''City of God'' than the film's Virgil, leading us all through hell.
-------------------------------------------
"We made a concious decision to keep this movie in theatres for 54 weeks," says Miramax chairman Harvey Weinstein, who rereleased City of God 3 times based in part on word-of-mouth in Hollywood. Russell Crowe, Matt Damon, and Quentin Tarantino, he says, all told him: "I love this movie."
Quote from: Pyeah.. wasn't this film co-directed by a chick, Katia Lund? what is going on here, is she invisible?
Quote from: SoNowThenOn a current bootleg box going around in this indie rental place, she's the only one listed as director...the mystery continues
One last bit of Oscar intrigue hangs over City of God. Though nominated as sole director, Meirelles collaborated with documentary filmmaker Katia Lund, who is credited on the movie as codirector. Meirelles unabashedly praises Lund's "important" contributions but adds that her role was limited to working with the cast of amateur actors. Asked why Lund wasn't nominated, Weinstein says, "That's a good question. Fernando and Katia have to determine that amongst themselves. We'll certainly go to the Academy and ask them to make a ruling." For Meirelles, the ruling will be irrelevent because he's convinced he won't win the damn thing anyway. "I really think Peter Jackson will win. He deserves to." he says, "But you bet I'll be there!"
yeah the lady came to my theater to speak when city of god came out a year ago. she's way cool.
Quote from: themodernage02Meirelles unabashedly praises Lund's "important" contributions but adds that her role was limited to working with the cast of amateur actors. Asked why Lund wasn't nominated, Weinstein says, "That's a good question. Fernando and Katia have to determine that amongst themselves. We'll certainly go to the Academy and ask them to make a ruling."
that's stupid, considering these kids were amateurs and the crew was proffessional, the chick must've had a harder job than Mr Flashy Camera over here. she deserves credit.. oh right, it would take away from the novelty of having sofia as the only chick.
Why didn't they just credit her as an "acting coach"? Sofia had one of those on Virgin Suicides...
I'm looking forward to seeing it again this weekend. It's been a year since I saw it.
I will be seeing this film for the very first time this weekend. Maybe it'll finally kick my ass to get back working on my blog (http://www.trappings.blogspot.com)- I originally meant to jot my thoughts on every bit of popcult I experienced on there. Oh, these sad broken dreams...
I'm going to try to go in with fresh eyes, which is virtually impossible with all the ecstatic praise the film has received here. But I'll still try....
And the winner isn't ...
Katia Lund co-directed the explosive City of God. Why was her name left off the Oscar nomination? By Alex Bellos
Friday February 6, 2004
Katia Lund: ' I have decided is that this is Brazil going to the World Cup.' Photo: Reuters
Katia Lund was having breakfast last week at her flat in Rio with some of the young cast of City of God when the telephone rang. It was a journalist who asked her: "You already know - right?" She didn't. The call was the first she heard that City of God, which she co-directed, had been nominated for four Oscars, including best director for her colleague Fernando Meirelles.
The 37-year-old Brazilian did not know what to think. She was, of course, overjoyed that the film she had worked on was achieving the ultimate in mainstream international recognition. But she was also aware that her name was not going to be up in lights. She was not an Oscar co-nominee. She would be denied - again - respect that she thought she deserved. The issue of her co-direction credit, she admits, is "fairly confusing to everybody and not very well resolved".
Paralysed by mixed emotions, she refused to speak to journalists for a few hours as she formulated a response. "There are two ways to go. One, you fight for recognition,"
she reasons. "And I really don't think I will gain anything from that. It might happen down the road, but I just don't want to be fighting now. When I made the film, it was much more important to me to bring the issue [of urban violence] to debate because, in Brazil, no one was talking about these things."
So Lund took the second option. "I have decided to be happy about the whole thing. What I have decided is that this is Brazil going to the World Cup and I'm not going to be the one who wrecks the party."
City of God has been the most critically acclaimed Brazilian film in recent years, and is the country's greatest international success of all time. Based on a book by anthropologist Paulo Lins that fictionalised his academic research into the poverty-stricken Rio neighborhood Cidade de Deus, the film shows how in the 1970s and 80s armed drug gangs came to dominate the city's poor favela areas.
When the book was published, Sao Paulo commercials director Fernando Meirelles bought the film rights. Yet he had never set foot in a favela and set about trying to find out how he could. This brought him into contact with Lund, a fellow Paulista - and herself a film-maker specialising in Rio's most violent areas.
With orange hair, piercing blue eyes and a freckly European complexion, Lund stands out in any crowd of Brazilians - not just the ones at the bottom of the social scale. In fact, she is the middle daughter of two Americans who moved to Sao Paulo. She calls herself "bi-cultural" and explains that the feeling of being an outsider helped her empathise with favela communities.
Lund's first experience in a favela came in 1996, when Michael Jackson elected to film the video for They Don't Care About Us in Rio's Dona Marta favela. Lund was in charge of production. She met the drug bosses who controlled the area and became fascinated with their lives, hanging out with them, living in their world, and eventually co-directing the impressive favela documentary News from a Private War. She was also getting experience as assistant director in many Brazilian films including Walter Salles's Central Station.
Meirelles got Lund on board at the beginning, and agreed to her request to be guaranteed a credit as co-director. "When Fernando hired me, we were bringing our talents together," she says. Together they started Us from Cinema - a group of actors from poor backgrounds who would eventually take most of the roles. Lund worked closest with the actors while Meirelles was more concerned with storyline, locations, editing and images. But roles, even when clearly defined, always blur. Meirelles praises Lund for doing more than just working with the cast. She helped on the script and in developing the characters.
Lund lists what she did. "A year of preparation. Sitting on the set next to Fernando. Going to the edit. I was not there just to hold his hand. It puts me in a very awkward position. I worked on the script from the fourth to the 12th draft. I supervised the crew. I know I was there working with Fernando to construct the vision and style of this film. If I was not directing, what was I doing?"
While the swish and stunning aesthetic - the handheld cameras, the lighting and the dynamic editing - was largely credited to Meirelles' experience as one of Brazil's top advertising directors, Lund believes that she had a strong influence too. "If anyone looks at my previous work, they can see it's very similar in style."
When the film came out Lund was indeed credited as co-director, in a separate line. Meirelles was "director". A bit like co-pilot and pilot. One more senior than the other. Before the film was released, they went to Cannes and she already sensed that she was being treated by the press not as a director but as "the woman who took care of the kids and was the tour guide of the favela".
It is partly, she claims, to do with the Brazilian film industry. The country barely has an industry and it is always a struggle to make films happen. There is an informality and a necessary pooling of resources that you don't get in more established countries. "Co-directing is very common in Brazil. Fernando's previous two films were co-directed. Walter Salles has films which he co-directed. Almost 50% of successful films here over the last five or six years have been co-directed. It's because the director has to produce the film on his or her own. It's very solitary."
But the Academy doesn't acknowledge the term "co-director". If Lund had joint credit, rather than a separate one - like say, The Matrix's Andy and Larry Wachowski - then things might have been different. Moreover, the Academy's submission committee, which has looked into the issue, says they do not consider her duties to be that of a nominateable director.
This, she discovered, was why Harvey Weinstein, boss of City of God's US distributors Miramax, did not put her name up for the Oscar ballot paper. She says she didn't question it because she was tired of the whole issue and because she thought that there was no point. What chance did a Portuguese-language film about urban violence have with the Academy's voters?
When she talks there is no bitterness in her voice. She has spoken to Weinstein, who told her that her presence would be needed for publicity purposes at the Oscar ceremony. "I have been invited to go but I've not decided yet if I am going to."
After finishing City of God, Brazil's biggest channel, TV Globo, commissioned a four-part miniseries called City of Men that used the same actors and examined the same themes. Lund directed two episodes and Meirelles one. In the light of City of God's success, Meirelles was offered a $65m Hollywood picture - which he turned down - and was then given backing for an ambitious project called Intolerance II, to be filmed in five countries. Currently he is in preproduction of The Constant Gardner, based on a John le Carré novel and starring Ralph Fiennes. With the Oscar nomination, he has become one of the hottest directors in town.
Meirelles is also happy to acknowledge Lund's input. He told the Guardian: "I brought Katia onto the project for the 10 months of production and her work with the cast of the film was invaluable. Although the American Academy does not recognise co-directors, I know that I could not have got the performances from the actors without her contribution. I also know that Katia shares in my shock and delight, along with that of the rest of the crew, that the film has been acknowledged in this way."
Lund has also had some international interest in her work, but nothing so high profile. She is working on an MGM film with kid rapper Lil' Romeo and developing scripts about subjects as diverse as Colombia and Israel. She wants to move on from stories about drugs, violence and favelas. She is also committed to remaining based in Brazil.
She keeps in touch with most of the City of God cast and is still involved in Us from Cinema. She feels proud that the drama group is still going and now has funding for another year. Meirelles gives it money and Lund is on the advisory board. "Us From Cinema is now a solid NGO [non-governmental organisation]. I didn't want it to be "Katia's little social project". I am not independently wealthy. I have to take care of my own career. That's as much as I can do."
Y'know, this is bullshit. Put her name on the fucking nominations list. Whadda joke...
I'm a little surprised Fernando would go along with this. You gotta have a little integrity in this life, otherwise what the hell do you have?
speaking of shaolin soccer. this shaolin soccer-inspired ad minus the special effects kicks a lot of ass. actually, this is more like an old 80s hong kong movie called The Champion, starring a bunch of martial artists who used all that acrobatics flipping stuff to play soccer. Either way this is COOL!
http://www.breaking.nl/breakvision/nike_commercial.avi
sorry pete, this thread has nothing to do with asian ppl..
well now it does.
Quote from: chuckhimselfoMeirelles was offered a $65m Hollywood picture - which he turned down - and was then given backing for an ambitious project called Intolerance II, to be filmed in five countries. Currently he is in preproduction of The Constant Gardner, based on a John le Carré novel and starring Ralph Fiennes. With the Oscar nomination, he has become one of the hottest directors in town.
Lund is working on an MGM film with kid rapper Lil' Romeo.
i think that right there is what screwed her...
i just cought a really cool tv spot for this, and my excitment for seeing this movie is manifesting itself in a physically painful manner (stomach pains). it's funny cuz it's already been in theaters off and in for a year in the U.S., has already been in theaters and released on DVD in Europe and Aus if i'm not mistaken, and it is still going. could this be the most prelonged theatrical release/rerelease/rerelease of the rerelease ever?
be kinda hard to beat star wars, star wars on VHS, star wars: re-released on VHS, then Star Wars: re-released in the theaters, and then star wars: re-released in the theaters on VHS.
Quote from: Psorry pete, this thread has nothing to do with asian ppl..
HAHAHAHA
***Tiny little spoiler***
I saw the film about a year ago with my sister. She began to bawl uncontrollably when they shot that kid in the foot. She told me it was the most terrible thing she had ever experienced. She's into kids, I guess.
Quote from: Recce***Tiny little spoiler***
I saw the film about a year ago with my sister. She began to bawl uncontrollably when they shot that kid in the foot. She told me it was the most terrible thing she had ever experienced. She's into kids, I guess.
More spoilers.
I don't know, I kinda thought it was worse when he was shot in the head.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaQuote from: Recce***Tiny little spoiler***
I saw the film about a year ago with my sister. She began to bawl uncontrollably when they shot that kid in the foot. She told me it was the most terrible thing she had ever experienced. She's into kids, I guess.
More spoilers.
I don't know, I kinda thought it was worse when he was shot in the head.
No, that part wasn't to bad, it was really the shooting in the foot and the kid crying tha got to her. Don't ask me to explain it, I rarely cry during movies...rarely.
Hehe, I was being sarcastic (facetious, really). Guess that wasn't clear. Anyway, City of God left me rather unaffected emotionally, but I can see how that scene would be nerve-wracking for some.
Yeah, my sister is doing a ph.d in child studies, so i guess she likes them.
Quote from: RecceYeah, my sister is doing a ph.d in child studies, so i guess she likes them.
Does she get to dissect them?
http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert08.html
Fans baffled by Oscar snub, girl on a pier
February 8, 2004
BY ROGER EBERT
Q. I was thrilled that "City of God" got four nominations, but what happened to co-director Katia Lund? She is left out of the best director category, with only Fernando Meirelles listed. Was it too much to have two directors on one film or did they feel that Sofia Coppola was enough female directors for one category?
Katia is a wonderful director who created the short film that is the core of "City of God." I hope this gets corrected -- or is there something going on behind the scenes? There was some controversy when Miramax first bought the film and left Ms. Lund out of the credits, but it got corrected.
Gary Meyer, Berkeley, Calif.
The academy didn't list her as co-director. But Miramax president Harvey Weinstein tells me "we're working on that, trying to get her included." He says Meirelles was the actual director of the film, but Lund (who made the short subject that inspired "City of God") "selected all the actors and worked with them -- she directed the actors." He said if Meirelles wins the Oscar, he will certainly praise Lund in his acceptance speech.
My contacts suggest that Lund's contribution to the film was crucial, and that she has been unfairly shouldered aside during all the Oscar attention. In Brazil, her exclusion has stirred up a media controversy because some believe that her contribution was greater than Meirelles'.
I am told by a well-informed production executive: "If you watch Katia Lund's DVD and then watch Meirelles' two previous films, 'Crazy Boys' and 'Maids,' I think you will gain a wonderful insight regarding 'City of God,' and if you read the official 'Cidade de Deus' Web site, you will learn what each of the directors did. Katia has always taken the position that she would not do anything which might hurt the film; therefore she continues to take the high road and has not and will not go public with this grave injustice. Katia has filmed in the favelas [slums] of Rio for the last seven years and her priority is that the film will be a vehicle that can help the social and political problems faced every day by those living in the favelas."
Despite what others may believe, Meirelles himself believes the situation is being overblown. In an interview last week with Sun-Times staffer Laura Emerick, he emphasized that Lund's role was limited to working with the actors, and that "she was not involved with the actual filming -- the cinematography, the editing, the location work, the art direction, and so forth." (That is, all the technical functions that largely constitute the director's role.)
But in the same interview, Meirelles was gracious about Lund's role and noted that it was his decision to give her a co-director's credit in the first place, "to acknowledge her contributions to the movie."
note to self: never accept when someone asks me to co-direct.
Quote from: chuckhimselfonote to self: never accept when someone asks me to co-direct.
Quote from: in the 'On Co-directing' thread Pnext time, don't co-direct unless it's with ur wife, or brother.
also, don't most directors say "casting" is 90% of directing. or sumthin like working with actors is the most important part of directing, i know PT said it..
Quote from: Palso, don't most directors say "casting" is 90% of directing.
And yet there's no Oscar for Best Casting Director.
It's'a wacky!
altman says that a lot.
The acting in this film is terrific. Watch the kid who plays young Little Dice. Knowing what he does later brings to him an intensity that I didn't catch the first time. Lund deserves the nomination just as much as Meirelles.
Not just casting, but "directing the actors." That sounds like directing to me.
seriously, the last time someone's done a great movie with this many kids was probably truffaut's small change or something.
how're you kids seeing this thing?
Quote from: Pedro the Wombathow're you kids seeing this thing?
It's back in theatres now. It's playing at my local arthouse, and I imagine that's the case in a lot of places. I've seen a couple commercials for it, too.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaQuote from: Pedro the Wombathow're you kids seeing this thing?
It's back in theatres now. It's playing at my local arthouse, and I imagine that's the case in a lot of places. I've seen a couple commercials for it, too.
Yeah, I was hoping to see it yesterday, but now my plan is Thursday night.
Quote from: Pedro the Wombathow're you kids seeing this thing?
dvd
Quote from: PQuote from: Pedro the Wombathow're you kids seeing this thing?
dvd
overnetahaaaahaahaha
Well folks. I have finally since City of God.
And it lived up to its hype. And then some.
A classic that is truly a Brazilian GoodFellas.
Best movie of the year.
I'm glad you liked it , Cinephile.
On a similar note, I saw 24 Hour Party People today. Good, Good.
Rachel Weisz Wife to a Constant Gardener
Source: Variety
Variety reports that Rachel Weisz has landed the female lead opposite Ralph Fiennes in The Constant Gardener, an adaptation of the John le Carre novel for Focus Features. Oscar-nominated helmer Fernando Meirelles (City of God) directs, with shooting to begin in May.
Weisz will play the feisty wife to Fiennes' complacent British diplomat. While he seems most interested in tending his garden in Nairobi, she uses her law degree to expose a scandal in which a drug company is testing a dangerous tuberculosis remedy on a group of poor Africans. When her battered body is discovered in the jungle, her husband is driven to discover her killer and uncover possible collusion between politicians and a pharmaceutical giant.
Sounds awesome.
Quote from: MacGuffinRachel Weisz Wife to a Constant Gardener
Source: Variety
What happened to his project dealing with the differences between the northern and southern hemispheres? This project sounds too ordinary for his talent.
Seen it yet, godardian?
Just saw it tonight, and it was amazing! It was simply beautiful.
ur not godardian.
I also wasn't part of some gay friendship group on Xixax :wink:
Quote from: Chest RockwellI also wasn't part of some gay friendship group on Xixax :wink:
:?: Tell me where such a thing exists, and I'll sign up for it!
I did see it on Thursday eve, Ono. I really, really liked it. I was worried that it would be full of gimmicky music-video type stuff, but there was just a tiny dash of that toward the beginning. It would definitely be on my top 10. I didn't loooooove it as much as some, but it was very energetic and well-made and entertaining. It maybe wasn't quite as world-shatteringly relevant or substantive as I might've expected from its acclaim here, but it's not fair to the movie to judge it that way- it definitely succeeded, and then some, on its own terms.
macguffin?
(anyone else here STILL not seen it yet?)
i have not.
Quote from: Pedro the Wombati have not.
Go see it.
Quote from: themodernage02
(anyone else here STILL not seen it yet?)
.i haven't .but Best Buy told me that in their ad .that it should be on thier shelves on tues(2/17)............and i like to believe..........i want to believe..........in the greater good of the press..........
I just caught the end of some MTV News segment about City of God. John Norris was praising it and he also said that J. Lo and Ben Affleck have both given the movie thumbs up and that the RZA says it's "the most gangsta movie of the year". Where the fuck were these people a year ago? I saw this movie in Jan. of 2003. That's why it didn't get any fucking nominations for foreign film. Why would anyone care what those no-talents J. Lo and Affleck think about a movie? What are the odds that City of God catches on and becomes the new Scarface where millions of people miss the point and see a character like Ze as a quotable "cool guy"? Am i just being film-snobby?
the rza has talent man
I just meant J. Lo and Affleck were talentless.
Quote from: lamasWhat are the odds that City of God catches on and becomes the new Scarface where millions of people miss the point and see a character like Ze as a quotable "cool guy"?
Hahaha.... probably two to one.
Quote from: SoNowThenQuote from: lamasWhat are the odds that City of God catches on and becomes the new Scarface where millions of people miss the point and see a character like Ze as a quotable "cool guy"?
Hahaha.... probably two to one.
its too bad black people dont like to read or i'd say that was very very possible.
After all this time, I FINALLY saw this...
Did it live up to the hype? Well, I can see why it's getting all the praise, and it certainly is a great film, but I myself didn't find it a total moving experience. I think budgie said it best, especially the last sentence:
Quote from: budgieExtremely stylish, edgy at times, occasionally over-lush and melodramatic but very skillfully crafted and often brilliant. Subject matter and even the narrative are over-familiar, but it still looks fresh enough... although I'm wondering how much of that is because it's set in a new place cinematically.
I found the opening (trio story) questioning what the big deal was all about and ready to write it off as another disappointment, but once it settled the exposition of introducing characters and place, that's where the film really took off. I'd list it as a best of 2003 (and this was the film I was waiting to see before I made my list), but it might not be a very high placement.
I'm pretty sickened that MTV is promoting this because MTV ruins everything. I mean they have movies like Honey and Barbershop 2 on their Movie show. And with the brillance of Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck in Gigli I'll watch anything they say to :wink:
I mean I guess its cool that they are giving mention to a great film but for the wrong reasons. I mean when RZA from the Wu Tang Clan gives it 2 Smoking Uzee's up, I kind of wonder. I actually thought this movie was about how bad violence is, and that its hard for them to escape it?
macguffin make your list for 2003! i'm dying to see it!
i finally saw it today and i thought it was a great great, scary film. scary because it's sooo realistic. especially L'il Ze, that's fuckin scary shit. fernando meirielles is a great director and he deserved the oscar nod. anyways, anyone who hasnt seen it, do so.
so I finally see this...and I guess overall I'm disappointed. I enjoyed it, I liked it and I thought it was a good movie. I'd give it 4/5 stars. The claims that it is one of the best movies ever or even the best movie of the year I think are a little ridiculous. I also find the claims about the realism to be ridiculous, the film seemed more fantastical than realist. I mean everyone looks at the handheld and the 'grittiness" but ignores the 360 degree shots, splitscreens and the use of filters. I'd say the film is more entertaining than moving. There are some gruesome scenes but the only reason I found them gruesome is that they involved children, I didn't feel moved.
I even had some problems with the narrative, the story is told through a narrator yet occasionally we'll enter the psychology of another character. This is just a minor gripe, but I hate when films leave the realm of their storyteller's powers.
With all that said, everything in the film was performed well, and it was a very good film. I enjoyed it but I don't think my cinematic life would have been hindered had I not ever seen it. I guess my main problem is I found it to be more pulp than heart.
Quote from: SHAFTRI mean everyone looks at the handheld and the 'grittiness" but ignores the 360 degree shots, splitscreens and the use of filters.
I'm sorry, I just don't understand, what's the problem with this?
Quote from: rustinglassQuote from: SHAFTRI mean everyone looks at the handheld and the 'grittiness" but ignores the 360 degree shots, splitscreens and the use of filters.
I'm sorry, I just don't understand, what's the problem with this?
When a film is trying to achieve a realism...I think the 360 degree shots, splitscreens & filters counteract that attempt.
Quote from: SHAFTRI guess my main problem is I found it to be more pulp than heart.
whats wrong with pulp? i think your main problem was visitng this thread for the last year and a half without having seen the movie. hype kills all things.
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: SHAFTRI guess my main problem is I found it to be more pulp than heart.
whats wrong with pulp? i think your main problem was visitng this thread for the last year and a half without having seen the movie. hype kills all things.
I visited the thread last night after watching the movie. Perhaps that is why my review comes off so negative. Had I posted before reading everything I probably would have just said it was a good movie and not got into aspects I didn't like.
Stylistic devices like that can help the mood and feeling of the film and setting. It wouldn't have been as impactful if it were shot with fine grain film, no filters, and handheld cameras all the time. Can you not feel the sweat and the heat during the film?
Quote from: SHAFTRI enjoyed it but I don't think my cinematic life would have been hindered had I not ever seen it.
How many "4/5 stars" movies are you seeing nowadays?
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: SHAFTRI enjoyed it but I don't think my cinematic life would have been hindered had I not ever seen it.
How many "4/5 stars" movies are you seeing nowadays?
I watched it in the midst of finishing up the Antoine Doinel collection, which I absolutley loved. So of the last few movies I've seen..other 4 star films include: Bed and Board, Spiderman 2, Antoine & Colette, Jackie Brown & Swingers.
Hmmm, with that said I'll bump down City of God to ***1/2. My rankings normally change after a night, because I have time to think more about it.
EDIT: i'll put it at ****, that's final.
You just bumped City of God a half star under Spiderman 2?
Uncle Joey, you need to put down the pipe...
(Swingers is over-rated)
Quote from: RegularKarateYou just bumped City of God a half star under Spiderman 2?
Uncle Joey, you need to put down the pipe...
(Swingers is over-rated)
I'm not Uncle Joey.
yeah... but there's a picture of him in your avatar
(I forgot there was a member actually named "Uncle Joey")
Quote from: RegularKarateyeah... but there's a picture of him in your avatar
(I forgot there was a member actually named "Uncle Joey")
And, strangely enough, this member was about to put City of God into his DVD player. I'll post my thoughts on it later tonight or tomorrow and we'll see if I'm smoking the same pipe as SHAFTR (insert fellatio joke here).
Quote from: RegularKarateYou just bumped City of God a half star under Spiderman 2?
Uncle Joey, you need to put down the pipe...
(Swingers is over-rated)
I'm still debating the ***1/2 or **** designation to City of God. I thought the cinematic elements of City of God were all top notch, the cinematography, the acting, the stylish editing. My problem is that I don't think they all combine for the right effect that the story requires. This is the same problem I had with The Passion of the Christ...the main difference is outside of those differences I still thought The Passion didn't succeed in any other element. City of God does and for this I enjoy it...I will not give it the praise that the majority of this board is giving the film. My initial review seems more negative since I was reacting to everyone else's reactions...rather than the film. That is my bad.
I think that Spiderman 2 is a better film than City of God. It uses it's stylistic flourishes to a better end in the film's story than City of God does, in my opinion.
And no, Swingers is not over-rated. You are over-rated.
FACED!
OK, I finally saw this and can chime in with a few of my thoughts. SHAFTR commented on the stylistic devices used in the film detracting from its realism. It's an interesting point and worth considering. On the one hand, I think the frantic movement of the handheld, etc. is a good way to emphasize confusion and panic, but not necessarily a good way to achieve a sense of overall realism. I'm no expert, but it always seems like the movies that grip me the most in terms of "realism" show restraint stylistically at the most intense moments. When the camera is flying around I just think it's easier for the viewer to escape and maintain the awareness that this really is just a film. When the focus is put on performances and narrative, rather than style the viewer is drawn in and "realism" is achieved. I might be wrong on this, but if I'm thinking about the most "real" moments in film that I've seen, the style was nothing like City of God. City of God just seemed much more "cool" than "real". If anyone has examples of movies that achieve realism with a style similar to that of City of God, I would like to hear them and give it some more thought.
However, let me add that I absolutely loved this film. I'm ashamed that it took me so long to see it because it is without a doubt an "A" film for me. The story is fantastic, the acting is wonderful - everything is just great. All I'm really saying is that SHAFTR has a point about the style taking away from the film's realism. Like I said, for me, it made the film more "cool" than "real" and that was ok with me, but I would imagine the opinion won't be a popular one.
One final thought: Was anyone else reminded of Omar from At the Drive-In/The Mars Volta when they saw Benny? They sort of look alike to me.
City of God Sequel, City of Men, On With Miramax
Source: FirstShowing.net
Some great news from fans of the incredible movie City of God from 2003. The rights to the big-screen sequel, titled City of Men, have been picked up by Miramax for U.S. (and a few other markets) distribution. The deal was made at the Toronto International Film Festival that just finished up and was based on a five-minute promo reel they were shown.
City of God director Fernando Meirelles will not be directing, but will be producing. However, City of Men is being directed by Paulo Morelli and is currently being edited after having already been filmed. The film will continue the story of the two friends in Rio de Janeiro caught in the middle of a drug war.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fec3.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB000GNOGWE.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V63857366_.jpg&hash=f17085261dfba8528ca4a160f87c07d6fdd7d93c)
http://www.amazon.com/City-Men-Fernando-Meirelles/dp/B000GNOGWE/sr=8-2/qid=1159417102/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-7156217-2774212?ie=UTF8&s=dvd
yeah
Quote from: Pubrick on July 20, 2006, 08:32:54 AM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezydvd.com.au%2Fg%2Fi%2Fp%2F785203.jpg&hash=c76217011944824baeabb818036d8a6080ed5826)
but what mac describes is different to this, i don't get it, are they remaking the series into a movie or what. this series is brilliant btw.
Miramax Says OK to City of God Sequel
Considering his new three-year production deal over at Universal/Focus, Fernando Meirelles still hasn't been linked to any projects associated with that studio. His next film, Blindness, which will be adapted by Don McKellar from the novel by José Saramago, is so far not set up with any distributor (as far as I can tell), and now the sequel to his breakout hit City of God (co-directed by Kátia Lund), which he did not direct but produced, has just been picked up by Miramax. This latter deal is not that surprising since Miramax also distributed the original, but it would not have been impossible to get the follow-up going at Focus.
The sequel, titled City of Men, which is also the name of the television series spun-off from the first film, was directed by Paulo Morelli and is currently in post-production. From the synopsis that I've seen, it basically looks like either a continuation or remake of the show, as it follows its main characters, Laranjinha (Darlan Cunha) and Acerola (Douglas Silva), both of whom were also the focus of Meirelles' and Lund's short film Golden Gate (Palace II).
So for those doing the math, it seems that City of Men is actually based on a show that was based on a feature film that was based on a short film. Except, maybe we should actually eliminate the feature film part of that equation. Since Cunha and Silva (and other actors from the show) didn't play the same characters in City of God, that film has nothing to do with the rest of these things, and is possibly only related for marketing purposes.
It almost sounds like they're just taking an unaired episode (or couple of episodes, or whatever) of the series and turning it into a movie. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Quote from: modage on September 27, 2006, 11:19:17 PM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fec3.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB000GNOGWE.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V63857366_.jpg&hash=f17085261dfba8528ca4a160f87c07d6fdd7d93c)
http://www.amazon.com/City-Men-Fernando-Meirelles/dp/B000GNOGWE/sr=8-2/qid=1159417102/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-7156217-2774212?ie=UTF8&s=dvd
Quote from: Pubrick on September 27, 2006, 11:33:49 PM
yeah
Quote from: Pubrick on July 20, 2006, 08:32:54 AM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezydvd.com.au%2Fg%2Fi%2Fp%2F785203.jpg&hash=c76217011944824baeabb818036d8a6080ed5826)
but what mac describes is different to this, i don't get it, are they remaking the series into a movie or what. this series is brilliant btw.
What's the difference between the one you posted and the one modage posted?Ok, so the yellow cover is the region 2, with only the first 2 series. And the one modage posted is the newly released one with all 4 series. Perfect. I'll invest in it for sure.
Quote from: overmeunderyou on September 28, 2006, 09:58:27 AM
Ok, so the yellow cover is the region 2, with only the first 2 series. And the one modage posted is the newly released one with all 4 series. Perfect. I'll invest in it for sure.
well i'm region 4 but yeah they prolly hav the same cover as it's got the same stuff. of course americans would come out of nowhere and get the better dvd release, y'all can suck it
holds up imo. overall better than i remembered
made me realize so much style is missing from cinema these days. i mean there's still style, but movies sure don't pop like this no more
as far as realism, that's a conversation from yesteryear. this isn't realistic. it's cinematic
but all my emotions while watching the movie, those were real, real to me. you dig? talking feelings