City of God

[Chest Rockwell]

i have not.

Go see it.

[NEON MERCURY]

(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..........

[lamas]

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?

[xerxes]

the rza has talent man

[lamas]

I just meant J. Lo and Affleck were talentless.

[SoNowThen]

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"?

Hahaha.... probably two to one.

[modage]

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"?

Hahaha.... probably two to one.

its too bad black people dont like to read or i'd say that was very very possible.

[MacGuffin]

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:

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.

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.

[Weird. Oh]

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    
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?

[modage]

macguffin make your list for 2003!  i'm dying to see it!

[El Duderino]

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.

[SHAFTR]

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.

[rustinglass]

I 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?

[SHAFTR]

I 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.

[modage]

I 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.