Compliance

Logline: When a prank caller convinces a fast food restaurant manager to interrogate an innocent young employee, no-one is left unharmed. Based on true events.

Cast: Dreama Walker, Ann Dowd, Pay Healy

Directed by: Craig Zobel

I chose this movie because I'd been hearing good things about it and it's got pretty good ratings on RT (90%). For those of you who don't know, about 10 years ago there were a series of prank calls committed to grocery stores, fast-food chains, and restaurants in which a guy claiming to be a police officer made employers strip search employees. In fact, there were 70 cases just like this. Compliance is the true story of the furthest that this prank got. Not "based" on a true story - an "actual" true story, meaning every major thing that happened, actually happened.

Summary

It was a really stressful and busy Friday in the ChickWich Fast-Food chain (in reality it was McDonald's) and everyone is working under a lot of tension trying to get orders right and having to deal with customers at the same time. Then, a man claiming to be Officer Daniels phones in accusing an employee named Becky of stealing  money out of a woman's purse. The Manager, Sandra, follows his orders as he gradually works his way up to her making Becky do humiliating things.

Review

This movie only works due to the fact that it is a true story.

The first half hour, all I could think about was why they didn't just say: "No, I need to see some identification." Every policeman has to identify himself properly before any accusations. The characters at ChickWich are all oblivious to this. About 4-5 different people. Sandra is the most to blame because others were going off the notion that Sandra knew for a fact he was a policeman. When you're frustrated with your main character's lack of knowledge, it's really hard to invest in her and believe her situation. But, this movie is a true story, and she actually is real. That's what makes this movie so interesting. As dumb as all these people are made out to be, it actually did happen - pretty much act for act.

It takes us through different levels of traumatisation.  Sandra conducts a strip search. Sandra calls in her husband Van who she can trust to look after her while they wait for the "cops" to show up. Van is ordered to search her again and make her do jumping jacks naked. When Becky argues, she is forced to do unspeakable things; So much so that you think the movie took it way too far - but it didn't - because it ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Dreama Walker and Ann Dowd complete this movie with awesome performances. I remember Walker's face from other movies such as Gran Torino and The Invention of Lying, but I suspect now I'll be seeing it a lot more - and I'd be very happy with that. I'll be honest when I say I couldn't put Dowd's face on any character, but I've definitely seen movies with her in them. I was pleasantly surprised by both of them - they captivated me.

Topic of the Day

I hate movies that say: based on a true story.

This is due to the simple fact that by saying "based", a filmmaker can change 80% of what actually happened and use the 20% to make the story seem more real. I guess it's a way to draw people in. Take Rudy for example. Remember that coach and how evil he was? In reality he was actually the exact opposite. When the team threatened to walk out if Rudy didn't get to play in the final game, the evil coach let in. But for the sake of it being a movie, they had to. In reality, the coach loved Rudy and wouldn't have had it any other way but to play him in the last game. And that's not the only one. There are so many horrors that say "based on a true story" and then a bunch of ghosts and paranormal things appear. It can't be proven, so why say that? You know? Compliance doesn't mess around with the truth, it tells the story exactly as it happened.

Consensus

Compliance is a thought provoking true story that really makes me think how sick some people are in this world. After watching, I immediately read up on the case and researched the details & I couldn't believe how accurate this movie was. It was really hard to believe this movie & that's what makes it so good - because believe it or not, it actually did happen. Any movie that makes me think about it for this long has to have done something right. It's hard to get past the fact that the main characters are so gullible, but when the fact that these are real events that happened kicks in, it's so hard to watch for other reasons than being primarily frustrated. I really did like this movie - it made me think and it taught me all about this huge court case that I had no idea about.

8/10                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Throwback Thursday- Ghostbusters

Logline: Three unemployed parapsychology professors set up shop as a unique ghost removal service.

Cast: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis

Directed by: Ivan Reitman

No particular reason as to why I chose Ghostbusters to review today other than the fact that I watched it last weekend and it's fresh in my mind. I think that it's cool to add in that the director of this movie now has a son, Jason Reitman. Jason has started off his career making a big splash with films such as Juno, Up in the Air, Thank You for Smoking, and Young Adult. Anywhoo, on to the review which I'm going to try to make as easy of a read as possible.

Summary

Ghostbusters  is about three professors who specialize in parapsychology. They all lose their jobs and decide to turn their biggest hobby into a full-time job. They've created a mechanism that lets them see ghosts, so they create a paranormal protection agency and call themselves the Ghostbusters. This is the story of three men who create a ghost prison in an abandoned New York City firehouse and the complications that arise when a demigod by the name of Zuul tries to take over the world.

Review

Throwback Thursdays are a weird beast to tackle. I've chosen a few movies from 2010 to do as throwbacks, but I felt recently that I was kind of coping out on the whole idea by doing so. There isn't really much difference between movies from 2010 and the movies now in 2012. But when you go back to 1984 when Ghostbusters was released, things become much harder to judge. 

What I will say, is that the creators knew how to sell this original idea. They stacked the cast with arguably the best comedic actor at the time (and maybe of all time now), attached a good director, and made one of the most catchy and memorable theme songs in movie history. This movie is filled with many classic events. The Pillsbury Dough Boy walking around NYC has to be one of the most memorable scenes in any movie from the 80's. Bill Murray was in his prime when this movie was released and he's great in this. I could go on and on about the things that I thought were great, but there were also some flaws.

This movie suffers from a very slow pace. I felt, and please don't slay me for this, that at times the film dragged on and it got boring. Somewhere in the second act things started slowing down. I'm not sure why, or when the slowness happened, but I felt that for a solid half hour I was really bored. All the way up until the Pillsbury Dough Boy scene. I think this may be due to the fact that the CG was really old and there were a lot of scenes that have been done over and over since this movie's release. I'm sorry for the lack of examples - this is definitely one of my least detailed reviews, but I was really tired when I watched this and didn't take many notes. This kind of leads me into my topic of the day, even though the review section is kind of left indecisive today.

 

Topic of the Day

Re-watching a movie that is widely considered a classic, but made anywhere from 20-100 years ago.

There are so many things to consider both in watching the movie and reviewing it. It's so hard to sit through some classics because many movies since then have either copied their comedy making it overused, used their formula making things predictable, or just straight up improved on the aspects in which it was considered a classic for in the first place. Being that Ghostbusters was made before my date of birth, I couldn't even tell you what people expected from movies in the 80's. I'm assuming this is definitely of the upper echelon though.

When I review an old film and try to find things to learn from it, I really have to base my learning off pure storytelling. In terms of comedy and ideas, a lot are now outdated, so there isn't much substance I can take from. Understanding what made it a classic is probably your best bet on learning something from an old film; sometimes the very basics of filmmaking can be what an aspiring filmmaker needs to touch up on to be great.

I know I sure had this toy when I was a kid!

Consensus

Ghostbusters is widely considered a classic by the general public. It's definitely a movie for all ages. It contains Bill Murray in his prime, a classic Pillsbury Dough Boy scene, and basic storytelling with a completely original idea. Since this review is being penned in via 2012, I can only make an assumption that mostly everything in this movie is original, making every cliché somewhat excusable. As far as storytelling goes, aside from a stretched out second act, the movie is pretty enjoyable and it's something I think everyone should see if they haven't - if not for the entertainment, at least for the history. This doesn't get the classic rating that everyone else probably gives it, but this is my own opinion and it's still not bad by any means.

7.8/10

Premium Rush

Logline: In Manhattan, a bike messenger picks up an envelope that attracts the interest of a dirty cop, who pursues the cyclist throughout the city.

Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Michael Shannon, Dania Ramirez, Wole Parks

Directed by: David Koepp

For those of you reading that don't know who David Koepp is, let me fill you in. Becoming a screenwriter in Hollywood is hard. Sell a spec script and you get your name recognized and enough cash to live comfortably for years. Sell two big ones and you're on to something. When you've written and sold as much as David Koepp, you're very familiar to how the business works and you know quite a bit about making good films. He also directs too. He's written some really great films such as: Jurassic Park, Spider-Man, Carlito's Way, Ghost Town, Indiana Jones 4, and I guess you could throw Panic Room in there too. I was pretty hyped for this movie. So much so that I went to the theatres to see it.

Summary

Wilee is a bicycle messenger from the streets of Manhattan. He doesn't have breaks on his bike, he doesn't hesitate, he goes full speed, and is widely considered by his company the big man on campus. He's in a bit of a rut with his girlfriend Vanessa, and this guy Manny is kind of a jerk to him and wants to steal her. But, when Wilee is propositioned to deliver this one package, a man named Bobby Monday starts chasing him and he has no idea why - his problems just got a lot bigger. Being a messenger, you can't just give a package to any random stranger. This is the story of Wilee being chased by both Bobby and the NYPD for various reasons in hopes of turning this package in to its rightful recipients.

Review

This film had so much pace I barely even knew where the time went. It was such a fun and exciting ride I never once stopped to check how much time might be left. Things were always happening. Although some may call this formulaic screenwriting, I honestly believe what Koepp wrote here is almost close to perfect. I've read quite a few screenplays in my life and I've watched a countless amount of movies - this one definitely ranks among the top for exploiting every amazing factor a story should contain. Urgency, stakes, goals, well placed comedic relief, subplots, action/taking a minute to breathe, all perfectly paced.

The only criticism I could possibly place on this film was the lack of character depth. Wilee is a cyclist who chooses not to write his BAR exam. He is on the rocks with Vanessa. Vanessa isn't really explored but she loves Wilee still. Manny is just a jerk. Very simple, but I felt, honestly, that the pacing of the plot would have suffered if the characters were explored any more than they were. I felt like it was a good sacrifice in the grand scheme of things. Rarely ever do I bring up sacrificing character depth as positive reinforcement, but in this type of movie it's somewhat excusable. It's a chase movie with unique characters that we do care about even though we don't know them that well. If it was filmed any other way, I feel like it wouldn't have worked. 1h and 30mins is the perfect runtime for this film.

My rating may or may not be surprising due to the lack of attention this film is getting, but it's honestly how I felt and I'll stand by my decision wholeheartedly.

Topic of the Day

Adding a twist to urgency.

Normally when writers begin to brainstorm ideas on how to make their characters not float around on screen with all the time in the world to complete their goals, they start with the notion that their main character needs to complete their goal "or else". This is just something I've picked up in a lot of movies this summer. The Avengers need to find Loki and disarm his device that brings his army to Earth, Batman needs to disarm the bomb or else Gotham will be blown up. Premium Rush adds a twist on the subject because the urgency comes from the fact that Wilee is being chased. His goals are simple, and the stakes are constantly raising as he keeps discovering more and more about this package he's carrying, and the urgency is always there because Bobby and the NYPD are always right on his tail. If he stops to take a break, he's caught and the package doesn't get delivered which means he doesn't get paid.

It is important to note that too much urgency can exhaust the audience. This film takes breathers and raises the stakes by showing us the background behind the package. I really did feel like this was done perfectly. Jumping forward in time always leaves an audience with the notion of "well, what happened to the characters in the time we didn't see them?" and it's quite hard to invest in characters when you're without them for big chunks of their story. The story of this package is told through time reversal, so we never really miss anything in our character's stories; we actually end up learning more. The problem with time reversal is that taking step backs can frustrate the momentum of the story. However, this film is so action packed that taking a break in momentum isn't such a bad thing; it's actually kind of nice.

Consensus

Premium Rush was only released in limited theatres and was pretty acclaimed by the critics that did end up seeing it. I am taking a leap and will say that this is probably the most underrated movie of the summer, even though it's been received quite well. I enjoyed almost every single aspect of this film and I believe it gave me everything it could possibly offer. For the type of film it is, I truly believe it hasn't been talked about enough. This one won't be given the title of "classic" by many people, but I can honestly say I watched this without finding many flaws and it kept my full attention for its entirety - so it's very close to being on that type of scale in my books. 

8.9/10

About Cherry

Logline: A drama centered on a troubled young woman who moves to San Francisco, where she gets involved in pornography and aligns herself with a cocaine-addicted lawyer.

Cast:  Ashley Hinshaw, James Franco, Heather Graham, Dev Patel

Directed by: Stephen Elliot

It was quite hard to find pictures for this movie that were appropriate to post on my blog. Being about a girl in the porn industry, About Cherry features a lot of explicit nudity and sexual intercourse. You may ask, well, why are you choosing it as a movie to review then? And I know there are a ton of other movies I could have chosen from, but here's the deal. Boogie Nights is one of my favourite movies. I'd go as far as to put it in my top 10, maybe even top 5. I think Paul Thomas Anderson is fantastic and every bit of that movie kept me fully entertained. If that could be so good, why not give another film about porn a chance? This isn't some 18+ Adult movie trying to be a feature; look at the cast... the girl from Chronicle, the guy from Slumdog Millionaire, James Franco, Roller Girl from Boogie Nights (Heather Graham). I guess I needed to defend my choice, and now I feel better, so let's move on.

Summary

About Cherry is literally about the life of a girl named Angelique that goes by the alias Cherry. Cherry has a really bad home life. Her mother is a drunk, her father is a drunk, and both her and her sister are scared for their lives constantly. One day Cherry's boyfriend convinces her to take pictures topless. It's $500, so she considers and ends up doing the gig. After seeing the opportunity she could have, she takes her best friend Andrew and moves to San Francisco. He's madly in love with her but she doesn't know. She starts doing porn, gradually accepting to do more explicit things, and she meets a cocaine addicted lawyer who she falls for.

Review

I can't say this movie is good. Not even just a little.

I will begin with my most positive judgement. This movie kept my attention for the first half completely. Not because I'm a guy, not because it was about porn, but because the scenes and pace were done well. I felt bad for Cherry because she grew up in such a rotten environment. I wanted to see what would happen to her. I also felt that the pornography scenes were very realistic and well done.

However, this film lacks good characters and conflict. So much so that when the halfway mark hits, there's really nothing left to see except for a bit of a spiral downwards. The movie never concludes itself, never had a voice, and never provides enough conflict to keep the movie interesting.

Topic of the Day

Two topics today. Conflict & Characters.

In terms of characters, this movie suffered because none of the people in it had any clear goals or motivations. Cherry wanted to get away and do porn for money to make a living. Ok, but that was established in the first 15-20 minutes. Now what? What's next for her? It became more of a porn than it did a movie from that point on because she was never really working towards anything. Her friend Andrew likes her, but never makes a move on her. So why is he even there to begin with? Her cocaine addicted lawyer does cocaine and knows she is in the porn industry - what was his purpose? When characters become nothing but people to fill runtime, the movie loses its direction completely because its characters are floating.

Conflict. I noted that the movie became a porn after Cherry's first goal was completed. It was around halfway into this movie that I completely lost interest because I realized, hey, nothing is actually happening right now. It started off well, so I kept expecting things to happen, but they never did. That's because there was no conflict. Nothing bad was happening. Cherry and Andrew were paying rent, living fine, she was enjoying the porn, he was having fun. So, what's the story about then? A girl getting naked? A guy clubbing? Not a very interesting plot unless you're looking for an 18+ Adult film to watch without feeling guilty.

Consensus

About Cherry starts off well and kept my attention until halfway through when I realized that nothing significant was going to happen to move the plot forward. The story became stagnant and turned into an excuse to have a girl naked on camera. The film lacked conflict, goal orientated characters, stakes being raised, and had little to no urgency at all. Unfortunately, aside from how good looking Ashley Hinshaw is, this movie is completely forgettable.

4/10

The Cabin in the Woods

Logline: Five friends go for a break at a remote cabin in the woods, where they get more than they bargained for. Together, they must discover the truth behind the cabin in the woods.

Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Kristen Connolly, Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz, Jesse Williams

Directed by: Drew Goddard

Back for another Monday review & surprisingly it comes to you early. 1 a.m. early. Hopefully when I wake up I can get a productive day in, but we'll see. 

I chose a movie I happened to catch in theatres on opening weekend. I had originally saw the trailer and thought to myself - man, this looks like the most corny addition to the horror genre yet. However, after hearing so many great things about it from screenings, I decided to give it a go. In fact, I was quite excited to hear that it was going to change the standard for horror movies from this point forward.

Did it live up to that hype?

Summary

The Cabin in the Woods is written and directed by Drew Goddard. If you do not know his name yet, he did some screenwriting for the hit TV show Lost and penned the ever-so-hated-and-loved found footage movie Cloverfield. This is his debut from the director's chair.

It was made very clear in the trailer than this isn't your typical stuck-in-the-woods type horror movie where a group of partying teenagers is haunted by the undead. There are weird things happening. Really weird. An eagle is shown flying and dropping dead after apparently hitting an invisible wall in the sky. What? It kind of had a Lost vibe to it, but you didn't need to go through countless hours to find out if the ending was worth it. It also wasn't your typical horror. In fact, it's hardly even a horror, yet, it's scary. Huh.

A group of teenagers set out to party in a cabin in the woods. When they get there, we are shown sequences of people watching them from what seems to be a secret lab/office. We find out gradually that they're running a show for people to watch. There are a ton of people behind the operation. Many things are planted in the cabin and whichever the group discovers will determine the monster the people are going to release on them. I can't give away anymore. That's just the gist of how this works. Watch and find out.

Review

This was my most pleasant surprise of the summer.

Ever have one of those movies where you watch it, then you get home and you can't stop thinking about it? It sticks with you to the point where you just want to watch it again? Not for understanding purposes, but for pure entertainment? This is one I will watch again. Probably more than once considering I've already re-watched it.

The screenplay for this movie turns genres upside down and switches back and forth from being a comedy, horror, thriller, mystery, drama, and romance. It follows the typical horror formula (Act 1 distinguish killer and setting, Act 2- escaping the killer's attack, Act 3- Surviving the final stand with conclusion) and then it adds on more. It doesn't pussyfoot around the formula and concludes the story at around 40 minutes. Then from there on the survivors need to find out what they've been put through and why.

*Spoiler* There is a scene where a bunch of monsters are unleashed and wreak havoc on the bad guys, and it's as awesome as it sounds. *Spoiler*

Topic of the Day

Breaking away from the norm.

This is one of the hardest, yet most important aspects of creating a film. Most people are not content with watching a movie with characters, plotlines, and action sequences they've seen a hundred times already. With horror, it seems most directors are content with the fact that teenagers thrive for horror movies to bring their girlfriends to, or actually, just to see with a group of friends in general. Horror movies are making a decent amount of money still, so why switch up the formula? Well, I guess they don't really have to, but every once and awhile a nice twist on the genre is a breath of fresh air. This doesn't come without risk though; twisting a genre can go completely wrong. People still expect a good movie, so rambling and completely changing the flow of the movie can work against the film. See Silent House for more info on that. But when you take the risks, like Drew Goddard did, if done properly you can create something special. For this movie, Goddard grabbed a lot of attention from studios and his name has been popping up in movie news quite a bit recently. I personally can't wait to see what he has next.

Consensus

The Cabin in the Woods switches between genres perfectly. It takes the necessary risks to add a twist on the recently stagnant horror genre and each of them pay off beautifully. This is one of my favourite movies of 2012 and will be on my movies to watch again list, even after already re-watching it once already. Definitely give this a try, it's pretty much a classic in my opinion.

9/10

The Five-Year Engagement

Logline: One year after meeting, Tom proposes to his girlfriend, Violet, but unexpected events keep tripping them up as they look to walk down the aisle together.

Cast: Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, Chris Pratt, Alison Brie, Rhys Ifans

Directed by: Nicholas Stoller

I was mildly excited for this one. I've liked Jason Segel in a lot of things and this is his first time hooking up with director Nicholas Stoller since their huge success Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I also had a good impression of Emily Blunt. The first 20 minutes of The Adjustment Bureau had me hooked due to the awesome chemistry between her and Matt Damon; I was disappointed when the movie turned weird, I was content with it being a romance. Now she's in a rom com? I was sold.

Summary

Tom and Violet get engaged. Usually when this happens, a wedding follows months and maybe even a year or so after. Normally. But for these two unlucky campers, whenever they set a certain time frame, something bad always happens that makes them postpone. Whether it be Violet's sister getting pregnant, Violet's sister getting married, whatever. It just seems almost impossible for their marriage to ever happen.

Violet gets a job in Michigan, Tom quits his cooking job just as he was about to receive a huge promotion, and the two travel there only to have things get even worse. We find out that Violet struggles with commitment and often steers away from things that aren't perfect. Tom is, well... he's just kind of there along for the ride.

Review

Going into this movie I was sold on the cast and director, but in the back of my mind the title kept whispering to me: long and boring. I really hoped this wasn't the case. I was really rooting for this movie to work and be another addition to my list of movies where jumping through periods of time has worked. To be completely blunt and simple - it didn't.

Plot points were easily predictable. As soon as Violet met the character of Winton Childs (Rhys Ifans, the Lizard) it was soooooo obvious that he would either have a romantic attraction towards her, or they both would towards each other. The plotline basically spells out every bit of conflict in this movie, taking away any surprises possible. Going into the film you know that they won't get married for five years, so you're just waiting for stuff to go wrong. It doesn't come as a surprise and none of the events are really that interesting or unique. The character of Tom is a chef. That's pretty much all I can say about him. Maybe he's a go-with-the-flow type dude, maybe he loves Violet? Either way, very stock. Nothing about this movie stood out to me. The only thing I'll remember in the future about it is the scene in the restaurant after hours where a girl grotesquely tries to seduce Tom by putting food all over the both of them. I won't remember it for comedic reasons, I'll remember it for how depressingly bad this movie was. 

At least the Lizard was in it. He's actually a pretty good actor.

Topic of the Day

Time jumping.

Goodfellas and City of God do this concept so well. It's a concept I'm still trying to learn more about. The problem with jumping months after months between sequences in a movie is that it disconnects the audience from the characters and story. What happened in those months? Are we to expect that nothing did? We should probably know what happened if we're going to invest our time into the story. You know? The reason I think this movie didn't work was because we didn't really get to know our characters well enough. Violet gets a psych job in Michigan, Tom is a cook. Violet doesn't like commitment (that's obvious from the title), Tom... doesn't want to be alone? Boring. So boring. Then when the movie jumps months ahead, who the hell even cares what's going to happen next. I think if you're going to jump months or years between sequences in a movie, you need to have your characters completely explored before you do so. City of God takes the first 20-25 minutes going into detailed backstory. VERY detailed backstory. Coincidentally, Goodfellas does the exact same thing. The Five-Year Engagement does not, and it suffers miserably for it.

Consensus

This movie could have been done in 1h and 30mins. That would have cut out 30mins of boredom that I had to suffer through. The characters are boring, the story has no sense of urgency to it, and the stakes are never raised. What happens if they don't get married? Nothing bad would happen. Nothing that would catch my interest enough to care. This was a huge disappointment. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. In fact, I'd go as far as to steer people away from it.

2/10

Throwback Thursday- City of God

Logline: Two boys growing up in a violent neighborhood of Rio de Janeiro take different paths: one becomes a photographer, the other a drug dealer.

Cast: Alexandre Rodrigues, Matheus Nachtergaele, Leandro Firmino

Directed by: Fernando Meirelles, Kátia Lund

There are some days where I'm just completely unable to put up a blog. Yesterday was just one of those days. Today will have both Thursday & Friday's reviews though, so I really didn't miss too much of a beat.

City of God came out in 2002, ranks at #19 on IMDb's Top 250 list, and received a few Academy Award nominations. The Directors have gone on record saying that if they knew how many times they could have died while filming this, they'd have scrapped the project.

I'm trying something new today, cutting the review shorter and getting my point across quicker for an easier read.

Summary

This is the story of how organized crime originated in the "City of God" (Cidade de Deus) in the suburbs of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It follows the stories of an innocent child with dreams of one day leaving the hood and becoming a photographer, and a ruthless child who rises to boss status in the drug trade. 

Review

This film follows the very rare 4-Act-Structure. You hardly ever see this in movies, but when it's done properly it can be one hell of a ride. It begins with the complete backstory of both children, Rocket and Li'l Zé. They grow up apart from one another, but their stories always end up crossing paths during the movie. The second act is Li'l Zé's rise to power and the growth of Rocket as he becomes an adolescent. The third act is when a relative peace comes over the streets of Brazil, and the everyday life of Li'l Zé and Rocket is shown. The fourth is the Drug War. Usually this structure can be really really long, and it was over 2 hours, but it never once felt like a long movie because the pace was constantly flowing and things were always happening to keep me interested.

The main thing that attracted me in this movie was that it told a story. A true story. Through the use of voice over, every now and then the viewer gets a break from the constant action and introduction of characters and the story becomes clear as day. I thought it was really well done and I've already suggested it to a few of my friends. 

Also, like Goodfellas, this is one of the only stories in which time jumps actually make sense and don't hinder the storytelling of the movie.

Topic of the Day

The introduction of a million characters.

One thing City of God does is introduce a million characters. Excuse the exaggeration, but I want to get my point across. When I say a million, I mean A LOT. So many that the whole first act is filled with characters and only two make it out alive. This is usually a movie killer; a recipe for disaster. Audiences get confused trying to remember everyone. Who is important, who isn't?

City of God does it right. They rely heavily on storytelling and backstory. We're introduced to a ton of characters, but the film's main character Rocket chimes in with voice overs telling the story making it easier to understand. Every character is explored in depth, even the ones that die really early. Characters are not only spoken of, their backgrounds are shown through scenes important to telling the story. This is the story of organized crime in the City of God, so it's absolutely necessary to show it on a large scale. It's so impressive when a movie can introduce so many characters and have an audience interested in almost all of them. 

Consensus

City of God is probably one of the most impressive feats in modern day direction and character exploration. Using a rare 4-Act-Structure this film never feels long, confusing or boring. I really do suggest that everyone gives it a try. Movies like this don't come around too often.

9/10