• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorShane D
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2008
    I know it's been around for a few years now.. but I finally went and hired CITY OF GOD..!!
    Oh man, it has to be one of the BEST movies I have ever seen.. it's quite violent, but it is made like a work of art.. I couldn't believe how good the cinematography was - all the shots were beautiful and the story was compelling, gripping and soul destroying.... I'm really amazed by it. I heard somewhere that when they made this film, there weren't very many professional actors hired either. They mostly recruited South American young people and put them through a brief acting course before shooting. The performances are great...
    Anyway, it may be an over-reaction but I was blown away by it. It reminds me a bit of the movie they made in South Africa recently called TSOTI, They both have similar themes in addressing young adulthood, violence and drugs in third world countries .. but I have to say that City of God was soo much better..

    I heard they're making 'The city of men' as a sequel to the original movie..I'm a little reluctant to see it in case i'm disappointed.
  1. No offense, but I thought CITY OF GOD was really terrible. I would rather watch SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELLING PANTS 4 than see that film again. cool
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2008
    Watched THE INCREDIBLE HULK last week ( before I went to the Festival ) and absolutely loved it! CGI is still ovbviously ropey whn it comes to humanoid forms but this is a massive step from Ang Lee's film ( though I have to say I thought Lee's film was underrated ), What I noticed of Armstrong's score didn't grab me as much as Elfman's.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2008
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    Yeah, Signs is a spectacular movie, without any doubt! It´s a perfectly crafted masterpiece.


    COUGH!?!?! Huh? Perfect? Aliens, allergic to water, descend on a planet where 70% of the planet is covered in Ocean? BRILLIANT!

    Anyway, I enjoyed the film but it's FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from perfect. As James said, the ending is indeed very poor!

    -Erik-
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2008
    Shane D wrote
    I know it's been around for a few years now.. but I finally went and hired CITY OF GOD..!!
    Oh man, it has to be one of the BEST movies I have ever seen..


    Both my wife and I enjoyed it as well. Very much so.

    -Erik-
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
  2. Ralph Kruhm wrote
    Tommy_Boy wrote
    the scene with the infrared binoculars is hilarious

    Agreed. Another totally surprising laugh attack... hell, this movie had a lot of that, didn´t it?

    So... since I never saw it... keeping in mind how I usually think about Burton´s fairy tale worlds, would you say I should try Edward or not...?


    Personally, I think Edward is one of Burton's most endearing projects, a little bit like Big Fish. Its fantastical in look, yet it feels so emotionally real and humain. The score by Elfman makes of it a fairy tale unlike any other, and Depp's simply brilliant

    I recommend it really, I hope it will endear you like it does for me time and time again
    waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Where's my nut? arrrghhhhhhh
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2008
    Erik Woods wrote
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    Yeah, Signs is a spectacular movie, without any doubt! It´s a perfectly crafted masterpiece.


    COUGH!?!?! Huh? Perfect? Aliens, allergic to water, descend on a planet where 70% of the planet is covered in Ocean? BRILLIANT!

    Anyway, I enjoyed the film but it's FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from perfect. As James said, the ending is indeed very poor!

    -Erik-


    Basically what i say about the lame ending of WAR OF THE WORLD but everybody looks at me like i am one of those tripod guys.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRalph Kruhm
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2008 edited
    I could say a lot about why Signs is perfect as it is (and it has nothing to do with aliens), and I could say even more about that ridiculous discussion that´s going on over there at the TDK topic, but I´ll stay away from both. There has been too much vomiting around for one day... rolleyes
    • CommentAuthorAnthony
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2008
    Christodoulides wrote
    Erik Woods wrote
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    Yeah, Signs is a spectacular movie, without any doubt! It´s a perfectly crafted masterpiece.


    COUGH!?!?! Huh? Perfect? Aliens, allergic to water, descend on a planet where 70% of the planet is covered in Ocean? BRILLIANT!

    Anyway, I enjoyed the film but it's FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from perfect. As James said, the ending is indeed very poor!

    -Erik-


    Basically what i say about the lame ending of WAR OF THE WORLD but everybody looks at me like i am one of those tripod guys.


    Don't worry mate, I hate WOTW too. Wasn't it bacteria or something that defeated them? Come on! dizzy biggrin
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2008
    Some stuff in the water. Which BTW is one of the primal ingredients (and in large quantities) of the earth's underground in which they were creeping for many years, observing us and planning their attacks biggrin
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2008
    Anthony wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    Erik Woods wrote
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    Yeah, Signs is a spectacular movie, without any doubt! It´s a perfectly crafted masterpiece.


    COUGH!?!?! Huh? Perfect? Aliens, allergic to water, descend on a planet where 70% of the planet is covered in Ocean? BRILLIANT!

    Anyway, I enjoyed the film but it's FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from perfect. As James said, the ending is indeed very poor!

    -Erik-


    Basically what i say about the lame ending of WAR OF THE WORLD but everybody looks at me like i am one of those tripod guys.


    Don't worry mate, I hate WOTW too. Wasn't it bacteria or something that defeated them? Come on! dizzy biggrin


    That's part of the original story Einstein.

    The ending made sense in a Spielbergian, family values kind of way, but it was a bad ending to the way he set it up so brilliantly in the first half of the film. It needed a more apocalyptic, perhaps even downtrodden ending than the one we got. But it's Spielberg, he will continue to tie his films up with a happy ending. (Which is nice, but not always better for the film.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2008 edited
    Steven, your persistence to disembarrass Spielberg from the vast stupidity of some portions of his work never ceases to amuse me wink tongue
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  3. Christodoulides wrote
    Erik Woods wrote
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    Yeah, Signs is a spectacular movie, without any doubt! It´s a perfectly crafted masterpiece.


    COUGH!?!?! Huh? Perfect? Aliens, allergic to water, descend on a planet where 70% of the planet is covered in Ocean? BRILLIANT!

    Anyway, I enjoyed the film but it's FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from perfect. As James said, the ending is indeed very poor!

    -Erik-


    Basically what i say about the lame ending of WAR OF THE WORLD but everybody looks at me like i am one of those tripod guys.


    War of the World's problem wasn't germ microbes, which were in the book 80 years ago. (Clearly, Shyamalan got the idea from the same place.) The problems of the film were: (i) explaining how aliens, buried underground, something didn't come into contact with water over the last several thousand years; (ii) making it convincing that Tom Cruise's son could walk into a firestorm and re-appear in an untouched Boston.
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008 edited
    franz_conrad wrote
    (i) explaining how aliens, buried underground, something didn't come into contact with water over the last several thousand years; (ii) making it convincing that Tom Cruise's son could walk into a firestorm and re-appear in an untouched Boston.



    (i) what i said above, look a couple of posts back
    (ii) easy explanation: hollywood bull
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  4. What I'm saying is that there are no explanations I've seen that are remotely convincing. You're probably saying the same thing.

    The underground thing was something they added to the story. It does make for some great scenes, as these things come out of the ground. It doesn't really help the film in the long run because of the questions it raises.
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
    Indeed, we are wondering the same thing dizzy
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
    Christodoulides wrote
    Steven, your persistence to disembarrass Spielberg from the vast stupidity of some portions of his work never ceases to amuse me wink tongue


    And your unfair discrimination of anything remotely considered Hollywood will forever amuse me. Actually that's a lie, it doesn't so much amuse me as disturb me.

    You just have to accept the fact that people actually like Spielberg (in my case, love him), and what I say in defense of him I actually MEAN, with every fibre of my body.
  5. There's a halfway ground where we can tell the difference between good Spielberg and bad Spielberg. They can often be found in the same film. dizzy
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
    Steven wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    Steven, your persistence to disembarrass Spielberg from the vast stupidity of some portions of his work never ceases to amuse me wink tongue


    And your unfair discrimination of anything remotely considered Hollywood will forever amuse me. Actually that's a lie, it doesn't so much amuse me as disturb me.



    And that's an exaggerated argument you bring up each time, don't you have a different one to contradict the Spielberg thingy? How many times must i tell you (with examples) that there are a lot of HOLLYWOOD movies i actually love? I don't have any problems with Hollywood, after all it's entertainment....What i can't bear is stupidity.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008 edited
    Christodoulides wrote
    Steven wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    Steven, your persistence to disembarrass Spielberg from the vast stupidity of some portions of his work never ceases to amuse me wink tongue


    And your unfair discrimination of anything remotely considered Hollywood will forever amuse me. Actually that's a lie, it doesn't so much amuse me as disturb me.



    And that's an exaggerated argument you bring up each time, don't you have a different one to contradict the Spielberg thingy? How many times must i tell you (with examples) that there are a lot of HOLLYWOOD movies i actually love? I don't have any problems with Hollywood, after all it's entertainment....What i can't bear is stupidity.


    I bring it up because you're unfair to a lot of films that perhaps don't deserve it. Maybe it is exaggerated, but if you read my post you will see that I'm saying I too don't like the ending! But I LOVE Spielberg, I love most of his decisions he takes as a director. Some, though, I don't.

    A.I. for example was widely considered a failure, Spielberg focusing too much on 'family values' again (due to his upbringing) rather than some of the more moralistic questions that were briefly shown in the future world of A.I.. I for one love that film, and loved Spielberg's approach. I would have also loved Kubrick's non-Spielberg approach if he had lived long enough to finish the film himself.

    I don't like stupidity too, but to condemn an entire film for one or two faults is also something I don't like.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
    franz_conrad wrote
    There's a halfway ground where we can tell the difference between good Spielberg and bad Spielberg. They can often be found in the same film. dizzy


    I can tell Bad Spielberg from Good Spielberg as good as any other. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy the Bad Spielberg since Bad Spielberg is still Good Directing. wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008 edited
    I loved A.I too, found it to be a very strong and touching movie. As for what you've said above, either one of us is unfair or the other too fair wink
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorShane D
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
    franz_conrad wrote
    No offense, but I thought CITY OF GOD was really terrible. I would rather watch SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELLING PANTS 4 than see that film again. cool


    I'd be interested to know why you thought that.. and what you compare it to that makes it a 'terrible' movie in your opinion...? (other than sisterhood of the traveling pants 4) wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
    Christodoulides wrote
    I loved A.I too, found it to be a very strong and touching movie. As for what you've said above, one of us is unfair or the other is too fair wink


    Well I don't think I'm being unfair. wink The Hollywood comment was exaggerated to make a point.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
    That's not what i wanted to say, I added an "either"; makes things clearer wink
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
    Ratatouille

    For me, a perfect film. I'm finding it hard to name a more charming, funny and heartwarming film as this one! Giacchino's score matches these adjectives to a tee.

    In my opinion it's a work of art; from the story, to the animation, the design and of course the music. I'm hooked on every scene, every shot, and I LOVE the characters. Brad Bird is an amazing talent who I hope will continue to work with Pixar.

    5 stars, every one well deserved.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSouthall
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
    franz_conrad wrote
    There's a halfway ground where we can tell the difference between good Spielberg and bad Spielberg. They can often be found in the same film. dizzy


    For me War of the Worlds is the ultimate example. Despite the big plot hole you mentioned, I thought it was vintage popcorn filmmaking for its first 95%, absolutely wonderful; but then the ending... boy, what a let-down.
  6. Shane D wrote
    franz_conrad wrote
    No offense, but I thought CITY OF GOD was really terrible. I would rather watch SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELLING PANTS 4 than see that film again. cool


    I'd be interested to know why you thought that.. and what you compare it to that makes it a 'terrible' movie in your opinion...? (other than sisterhood of the traveling pants 4) wink


    You know how pets can get 'rubbed the wrong way'? That's a bit like how I felt watching CITY OF GOD. I can understand how people might go for it, but I found the stylish MATRIX camera moves, flashy edits, and visual energy were so dishonest, draining all sense of reality out of the story. The film tells you it's a true story, but I left not believing a moment of it because of the way they made it.
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
    franz_conrad wrote
    There's a halfway ground where we can tell the difference between good Spielberg and bad Spielberg. They can often be found in the same film. dizzy


    Bad Spielberg:

    1941 - I think it's funny and the miniature action sequences are awesome but what a mess.
    Always - A complete snooze fest.
    Hook - Another mess. There are parts that work but there is so much that doesn't.
    A.I. - Not bad but not good either and the after the Blue Fairy stuff sucks
    The Terminal - Could have been made by any B-rate romantic comedy director. Why Spielberg wanted to make this is beyond me.
    Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Oh so bad. Could this be Spielberg's worst?

    -Erik-

    PS - I refuse to add War of the Worlds because until the happy ending it really works.
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
    franz_conrad wrote
    Shane D wrote
    franz_conrad wrote
    No offense, but I thought CITY OF GOD was really terrible. I would rather watch SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELLING PANTS 4 than see that film again. cool


    I'd be interested to know why you thought that.. and what you compare it to that makes it a 'terrible' movie in your opinion...? (other than sisterhood of the traveling pants 4) wink


    You know how pets can get 'rubbed the wrong way'? That's a bit like how I felt watching CITY OF GOD. I can understand how people might go for it, but I found the stylish MATRIX camera moves, flashy edits, and visual energy were so dishonest, draining all sense of reality out of the story. The film tells you it's a true story, but I left not believing a moment of it because of the way they made it.


    So you wanted more of a documentary approach?
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.