Author Topic: City of God  (Read 42136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +641
City of God
« Reply #15 on: March 11, 2003, 09:13:11 AM »
0
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.
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 11242
  • Respect: +1490
City of God
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2003, 12:15:49 AM »
0
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.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +641
City of God
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2003, 01:45:18 AM »
0
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Its 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.
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

budgie

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Respect: 0
City of God
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2003, 07:16:30 AM »
0
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Budgie 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:

©brad

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4559
  • Respect: +254
City of God
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2003, 09:24:35 AM »
0
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??

Recce

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 426
  • Respect: 0
City of God
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2003, 01:35:30 PM »
0
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?
"The idea had been growing in my brain for some time: TRUE force. All the king's men
                         cannot put it back together again." (Travis Bickle, "Taxi Driver")

jmj

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 145
  • Respect: 0
    • http://www.beautifulconfusion.com
City of God
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2003, 02:14:43 PM »
0
Quote from: Recce
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?


Most Definitely...but in a good way, not like he was biting his style or anything.
Gorobei Katayama: You're Good.
Heihachi Hayashida: Yeah, yeah. But I'm better at killing enemies.
Gorobei Katayama: Killed many?
Heihachi Hayashida: Well - It's impossible to kill 'em all, so I ususally run away.
Gorobei Katayama: A splendid principle!
Heihachi Hayashida: Thank you.

Recce

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 426
  • Respect: 0
City of God
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2003, 11:33:08 PM »
0
Quote from: jmj
Quote from: Recce
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?


Most Definitely...but in a good way, not like he was biting his style or anything.

yeah, exactly
"The idea had been growing in my brain for some time: TRUE force. All the king's men
                         cannot put it back together again." (Travis Bickle, "Taxi Driver")

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5798
  • Respect: +180
City of God
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2003, 07:52:12 PM »
0
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

xerxes

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Respect: +10
    • quotidian
City of God
« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2003, 07:59:07 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
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


that is a very strong statement, and I am almost inclined not to disagree

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5798
  • Respect: +180
City of God
« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2003, 08:08:53 PM »
0
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

Duck Sauce

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1986
  • Respect: +4
City of God
« Reply #26 on: March 20, 2003, 12:11:42 AM »
0
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.

Ernie

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1394
  • Respect: +3
City of God
« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2003, 06:33:32 PM »
0
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.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5798
  • Respect: +180
City of God
« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2003, 08:04:20 PM »
0
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

budgie

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Respect: 0
City of God
« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2003, 12:32:28 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
the 2 or 3



 :shock:

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy