City of God (2003)
Looking for a film that really packs a genuine wallop? Take the visual panache of a pre-Madonna Guy Ritchie (Snatch) film, the juvenile delinquency and debauchery of a Larry Clark (Kids) film, the propulsive narration and bloody violence of a Martin Scorsese (Raging Bull) film and mix it with a cast of about 40 characters. What you get is City of God, a brilliant and vibrant film that pulsates with exhilarating action, thoughtful commentary and devastating power.
In the 1960s, the Brazilian government transported its impoverished citizens outside of Rio de Janeiro, a glamorous tourist magnet. This new place of residency was a distant housing project of shabby slums, ironically titled City of God. In this begotten neighborhood the police rarely emerge (except to occasionally pick dead people’s pockets) and crime has become rampant. A mixture of poverty and an overabundance of guns and testosterone have bred a culture of criminals where teenagers populate ruthless gangs.
Our story focuses on Rocket (Alexandre Rodrigues) narrating the rise, and many falls, of all the flashy thugs of the City of God and the ripples they create in the community. Hes a young boy who is too scrawny to be a hoodlum like his older brother Goose. His brother belongs to a gang known as the Tender Trio, who are used to hijacking propane tanks for small gain. They get the idea to knock off a brothel at the urging of Lil Dice, a younger kid with ambition and a heart like a stone. After the successful robbery Lil Dice cleans up after the Trio, sifting through the brothel killing everyone inside and laughing insidiously.
The murder spree has long lasting effects, with each member of the Tender Trio finding an untimely end. Lil Dice grows from calculating child into a big-time burgeoning cruel gangster, who now calls himself Lil Ze (Leandro Firmino De Hora Phellipe). Ze has climbed to the level of kingpin the most pragmatic way possible: systematically eliminating all of the competition. Ze attains reign over the city. He instructs others not to do anything to arouse the outside police (the locals are paid off), and thus has made the City of God a safe place for rich tourists to drive in and purchase their drugs. It seems that Ze ruling by fear has brought newfound safety and prosperity.
Rocket’s path is quite different. As he matures into a teenager he discovers a love of photography. His attempts at a life of crime are short-lived; he simply likes his victims too much to rob them. Ze has Rocket take pictures of his gang strutting their machismo that eventually gets published onto the front page of a newspaper. Rockets reaction is that he thinks his death certificate has been signed. Ze’s reaction is delight. Lil Ze’s great weakness is his self-believed sexual inadequacy. When turned down by a girl he seeks out her good-looking boyfriend, Knockout Ned (Seu Jorge), and humiliates him. He terrorizes Ned, raping his girlfriend in front of him and inspiring him to long bloodthirsty battles of vengeance against Ze that will engulf the City of God.
A complaint that could be levied against City of God is the numbing effect of its violence. The gangsters in this film aren’t the mustache-twirling types of Gangs of New York, but merely kids. This isn’t any kind of glamorized Hollywood gun battle. When these kids get hit their bodies go limp; they drop to the ground in weeping masses. The films message of the hereditary nature of barbarism is clear. One of the amazing parts of the film is that it was mainly filmed in the actual City of God and uses a cast almost entirely of non-actors.
City of God is a loud announcement to the world of the arrival of a fresh, invigorating and monumental talent with director Fernando Meirelles. The visual flair he utilizes to advance his storyline is amazing yet never falters into the land of gimmickry. The narrative folds in on itself time-wise (much like Tarantino films) yet rhythmically connects the numerous lives and history of the City of God in one lustrous and captivating tapestry of urban decay. A fantastic example is a scene that chronicles the entire history of one apartment and the origins of the entrance of drugs in one un-moving shot. Imagine the Natalie Imbruglia “Torn” video but with drugs and guns.
There is one sequence of crushing emotional power that has been burned into my memory. The sequence involves a bawling child, no older than seven, being forced to decide where he would rather be shot, in his foot or his tiny trembling hand as punishment for his mischief. The reality of City of God is a harrowing one. As you can clearly see, City of God is not for the weak. The movie has its definite squirm-worthy moments of discomfort and will not be a good choice if you and your date are looking for that perfect weekend movie. This is a difficult movie to sit through at times, and the reality can be grim and uncompromising, but City of God is rewarding in respect to the amazing narrative and visual accomplishments. This is an unforgettable film.
The film piles on the body count while at the same time advancing a pacifist message between the bursts of adrenaline and bullets. Meirelles’ film will leave your jaw dropped to the floor by its sprawling complexity. This is what great filmmaking is all about. City of God is one of those movies that once you’ve left the theater you excitedly claim, “Now thats why I see movies.” City of God is simply a cinematic masterpiece and not only the best film I’d seen in 2003 but also one of the best movies I’ve seen in my life.
Nate’s Grade: A+
Share this:
Lost in La Mancha (2003)
Poor Terry Gilliam. One of the best visual directors today hardly ever gets a break. If there was justice in the world (a rhetorical question) Gilliam would be directing a Harry Potter movie. Just imagine t
he greatness of something like that. But Gilliam is seen as an eccentric who doesnt keep good track of his budget, as evidenced by the inflating costs of his Baron Munchausen effort. As a result of making classy yet quirky pictures his way Gilliam has become a director that works on the fringe. His last effort was a delirious retelling of the Don Quixote tale. When it came time to film The Man Who Killed don Quixote it seems everyone, even God, was against Gilliam realizing his dream.
Lost in La Mancha is a fascinating and equally heart breaking documentary following the making of and, more so, the breaking of Gilliams movie. For starters the location for a pivotal scene in the desert is located near a Spanish air force base and fighter jets roar overhead. Then theres a flash food that destroys equipment and a set. Then theres the star of the picture that may or may not have cancer but sure cant ride a horse. Its enough to pull your hair out. Lost in La Mancha is like the cinematic version of the highly entertaining, and addictive, HBO series Project Greenlight: witness movie making first hand and witness one catastrophe after another! The two directors of Lost in La Mancha are the same people that created the nearly 90 minute documentary on the trials and tribulations of making 12 Monkeys (and this documentary is by far the best special feature on any DVD ever released). The two have a certain fondness for Gilliam but push the Gilliam-as-Quixote image way too much.
The really sad part about this documentary is that the glimpses it does show of the film (when it is working and not going into devastation) prove it could have been a wonderful and whimsical fantasy. Heck, he even got Johnny Depp to be in it! Gilliam will move on as will everyone else involved in this aborted film but there will now be a lasting mark. Whether it serves as an open sore or a Band-Aid is a different matter.
Nate’s Grade: B+
Share this:
Tears of the Sun (2003)
Bruce Willis is an ARMY squad leader called in to rescue a doctor (the sultry Monica Belucci) at a missionary in Nigeria. The country is in great turmoil after very very evil rebels have assassinated the entire royal family. Oh, but the good and very hot doctor refuses to leave without Willis’ squad taking the refugees out of the missionary with them. He begrudgingly accepts and they as a group travel through the countryside of Nigeria, all the while the very rebels are not far behind.
The film takes a tonal shift when Willis’ men come to the choice of staying with the refugees and trying to save them all, or following their mission protocol and getting the hot doctor onto an ARMY helicopter and shipped out ASAP, with no regards to the refugees. The shift in morality isn’t as smooth as Three Kings but now the film tries to place an emphasis on the human scale of genocide (even though ALL of these refugees who have lived in squalor have sterling white teeth, go fig). The weight of the topic easily alludes what is little more than a by-the-numbers action film.
With action films there will always be gaps of logic. However, there was one monumentally glaring miscalculation of forward thinking that prevented me from getting into the film again (*Spoilers ahead, big angry spoilers*).
Okay, so African Rebels are chasing Willis and his team and the refugees. Got it. But then we find out later that one of the refugees is actually the, wait for it, heir to the throne of the country! All right, sounds hokey and more than a little culturally pretentious but I can follow. Hold on a second then. This heir to the country, who is obviously so important that people would risk their lives and safety for his own, why did these people not put him on the ARMY helicopters earlier that flew a handful of refugees out and to the safety of a U.S. air craft carrier. It makes no freaking sense whatsoever to have this golden opportunity that would 100% ensure the safety and longevity of THE HEIR TO THE KINGDOM and say, “Nah, you know what? Well catch the next ARMY helicopter guaranteeing safety to the man who would be king. Well sweat it out and have the rebels chase us, we could use the exercise anyway.” What has just happened to this movie?! After this, it was never the same for me; not that it was anything special to begin with.
Tears of the Sun is an action movie that attempts to be an action flick with a heart and a social conscious. There is a segment of the film where Willis and his cadre stumble onto ANOTHER batch of DIFFERENT but still very EVIL rebels assaulting a town, you know, rape and pillage and the like. Willis and company essentially save these people from the rebel tyranny but at this point the films core message has been well lodged into your gray matter: Africa needs the white man’s saving. More than a little arrogant and a tad racist, don’t you think? I mean not every country can wait patiently for Willis to liberate them.
Tears of the Sun does have some lovely examples of cinematography and some competent pieces of action here and there. In the end the film is an overblown and culturally insulting entry into the genre of people shooting and people falling down.
Nate’s Grade: C
Share this:
Spellbound (2002)
The field of super spellers heading to Washington D.C. is more varied than you could possibly imagine. What is truly amazing, and equally heart-rending, are the scenes showing working-class families encourage their children to excellence. Angelas parents fled Mexico to give a better life for their family in Texas. Her father has been a rancher for 30 years and does not speak a word of English. Its incredible to see the amount of pride her parents have when they see her compete. She says she’s doing it for them. Ashley lives in the projects outside of Washington D.C. She exudes confidence as she makes long treks from school to the cramp apartment her family lives in. Her mother had never expected her child, from her background, to compete for spelling contests but becomes her biggest and most vocal cheerleader.
Spellbound also shows the fanatical level of commitment some of these kids have. Neils father pushes his son to the extremes and the two go over 4,000-8,000 words a day. Neils parents even hire a spelling coach and he gets instruction from his schools foreign language teachers on the history and spelling of foreign words. The commitment most of these kids show is jaw-dropping and obsessive. Ted is the exact opposite. Hes so nonchalant about the spelling bees that it almost seems like hes battling complacency in his small town. His younger brother has the films best line: “It was so exciting. If I had blood pressure it would be through the roof!”
My favorite speller is April. She and her parents live in a dying town. Her father worked in a asbestos factory until it was shut down. He now operates a tavern across from the decaying factory. The family struggles to get by but has so much visible love for their daughter, so much undying support for April. I saw April’s parents as the type you might be embarrassed to say something weird to your friends (“Mom, you are so out of it, geez.”) but the same type that you secretly thank everyday you have. April declares herself a pessimist and doubts the distance she’ll go in the national bee. This is the kind of instantly likeable and compelling character Hollywood has forgotten how to create.
With Spellbound we get to know our hopefuls so well that were saddened before the national bee even begin because, at best, only one of them will win. And, as corny as it sounds, they are all exemplary examples of winners.
Spellbound is the most thrilling movie I’ve seen in ages, totally walloping the heady pretensions of certain action movies. This film will make your palms sweat and then some. Your heart races wildly when it isn’t in your throat. Several films like The Sweet Hereafter or American History X have brought me to tears through their adept expressions of sadness; Spellbound may be the first film thats ever brought me to tears (about five times) just for pure vicarious happiness and joy. To see these kids achieve will, and I know this is so cheesy and blurb-y, but it will make your spirit soar and want to cheer. I’ve since watched the film several times on DVD, and I must report how surprised I am that I end up crying every time, though at different spots. This is a joyous movie, pure and simple.
Spellbound is an uplifting movie for everyone that is guaranteed to have some lasting, triumphant resonance. If you cant feel for these kids I suggest you check if your heart is defective. This is a great example of what film can do, what the American dream can mean for people, and the great diversity an academic competition can inspire. Spellbound is thrilling, heartwarming, and sunnily satisfying. You’ll fall in love with these kids and their hopes and dreams.
E-X-C-E-L-L-E-N-T. Excellent.
Nate’s Grade: A
Share this:
Cradle 2 the Grave (2003)
Once again with Cradle 2 the Grave, Hollywood has reminded us of the magic of the buddy film with the incorrigible rapscallion rapper DMX teamed up with stoic kung fu master Jet Li. Oh wait, did I saw buddy comedy, because what I meant to say was, “pretty mediocre movie.”
DMX plays master jewel thief Tony Fait. He and his covert team (which includes one of the stars of Kangaroo Jack, take that for what you will) have been hired to steal priceless black diamonds. It appears others are also after these lucrative diamonds including Su (Li), Taiwanese cop, and some international arms dealers that steal Fait’s daughter. Only really bad guys steal kids. Fait and Su form an unlikely team to recover his daughter and the black diamonds, which are revealed as powerful high-grade plutonium. And you better believe that their investigation has them stop by a strip club at least once.
Let’s just say that acting is not the strong suit of Li or DMX. The rapper (whose real name is the non-threatening “Earl”) scowls a lot, as if he’s thinking some extra muscle will do the acting for him. Li seems sleepy or drugged, but he’s best when the fists are flying and his conversation is kept to a minimum.
The plot to Cradle 2 the Grave is besides the point. The movie tries to make DMX seem like the good kind of jewel thief, you know, the one you’d like living next door. He won’t allow guns, he steals Robin Hood-style from drug dealers, and he loves his little tyke. He even reforms a prostitute (Gabrielle Union). But if DMX is such the master jewel thief then wouldn’t he know that black diamonds aren’t real?
Li is a furious fighter, and his previous film Kiss of the Dragon proved to me that he could utilize chopsticks and pool balls as lethal weaponry. But with Cradle 2 the Grave he goes one step further, and one step closer to the bizarre world of make believe, by using, of all things, dwarves and lobsters as deadly weapons. What’s next Jet Li? Throwing cancer patients and school children?
Director Andrzej Bartkowiak has previously directed bombs Romeo Must Die and Exit Wounds, another DMX-teams-with-martial-artist vehicle. After Cradle 2 the Grave I say, three strikes and you’re out as a director. Yes, acting and story are not as important in an action film as most genres, however, Bartkowiak directs the action scenes like he’s caught in them. The camera will sway around like it’s ducking a punch and too often focus tightly on people and make rapid-fire cuts. You can’t enjoy the action because Bartkowiak won’t let you see what’s going on. The film’s climax is like a gigantic end stage in a video game.
Cradle 2 the Grave is so poor that the best thing about is Tom Arnold. Did you ever think you’d hear that? Cradle 2 the Grave wastes just about every reason for its own existence. This is the kind of movie someone who hates humanity would make. This is the kind of movie a zombie Hitler would have made. And I hear some of you saying, “But wait, there’s no way xenophobic Hitler would cast an African-American rapper and a Chinese martial artist in his movie.” Oh, that’s exactly what zombie Hitler would want you to think. Do you see how subversive it is now, do you?
Nate’s Grade: C-
Share this:
Old School (2003)
There’s something to be said for stupid comedies. Not necessarily the ones that are centered on large men getting hit in the head or crotch. Or films that climax with pie fights. Or any film where a wild animal plays some kind of pro sport. Or any film where Rob Schneider transforms into something and learns that life is indeed tough from a different perspective. As you can see, the stupid comedy has a very dubious history but when it succeeds at creating those hearty belly laughs, the kind where your face is sore afterwards from laughing so hard, few movies are as entertaining. Billy Madison is every bit as perfect in its humor as the more critically lauded comedies Rushmore and Raising Arizona. So then, is the crass college comedy Old School funny, stupid or both? It’s safe to say its makers did their homework and admirable achieve an unrepentant uproarious stupid comedy.
Mitch (Luke Wilson) is a real estate numbers cruncher who catches an early flight home from a business retreat only to discover his girlfriend (Juliet Lewis) blindfolded and ready to engage in an orgy. Mitch moves into a house on a local campus with the help of his two friends, smooth talker Beanie (Vince Vaughn) and man-child Frank (Will Ferrell). The trio of thirty somethings comes up with the idea to start their own fraternity and relive their youth. Their rebellion from adulthood leads to wild parties, underage girls, KY Jelly wrestling, drunken streaking, birthday party tranquilizers, eulogies featuring White Snake songs and, of course, taking it to the man that just wont let these kids have their fun.
Wilson is relegated to the role of the straight man, which means he pretty much gets to make faces at the antics of Ferrell and Vaughn. Wilson is the nice guy of the film, which in comedy terms means hes the individual tortured by others. And in other terms, means hes normally quite bland. Consider both checked with Wilson in Old School. Wilson is a very capable actor but he’s more or less backdrop.
Ferrell is like instant comedy, just add water and he can make anything funnier. Much has been made of Kathy Bates strutting around in her 54-year-old birthday suit (which may have led to a Best Unsupported Actress nomination) but Ferrell equally jogs around jiggling his goods with glee. Ferrell is hysterical as the films biggest party animal. He takes everything to another level of comedy. Stick around during the end credits just to see him kick some woman’s shopping cart. I’m telling you this simple action is one of the funniest things in the movie.
Vaughn has made a career of playing fast-talking louts that would normally incite people with his caustic remarks if he weren’t so damn charming. What happened to ole Vince and his oodles of sex appeal? Circa 1998 or so he was going to be Hollywoods next leading man, especially after massive exposure from Spielberg’s Lost World. Yes, starring in the very ill conceived remake of Psycho (now with masturbation at no extra charge!) was a bad career move but it shouldn’t have been a killer. I mean, Anne Heche went on to other films after it and this was before she was communicating with aliens with her made up language. Hell, I’m just kind of glad to see Vaughn in films again. His running gag with a bread maker is great.
The plot of Old School is really nothing more than a paper-thin device for the jokes to spring forth from. There are only stock characters in these kinds of films. Theres the nice girl (Ellen Pompeo) that will eventually get together with our protagonist in the end. There’s her smug boyfriend played by the smug Craig Kilborn. Jeremy Piven is a stuffy dean trying to shut the boys down to settle old grudges with them.
The women of Old School are really left with nothing to do. Either they are there to have sex with the men or, when older, marry and control them. Lewis is the opposite of the good girl as the oversexed former flame of Wilson. Leah Remini has a very brief role as Vaughns wife who knows when to lead him by a chain. 24‘s Elisha Cuthbert is a naughty schoolgirl that could get Wilson in trouble after one unexpected night. The ladies of this world are really tools for the guys, but what kind of feminist analysis is needed for a film that features Snoop Dog and not one, but two correspondents from The Daily Show?
Old School is from the director and co-writer of Road Trip, a crude yet very entertaining and lively comedy. Old School is kind of a big brother companion to Road Trip, and while not rising to the level of Animal House (as every college comedy wishes to be now) the film is indeed a pristine example of a gloriously stupid comedy aided by a very game cast. See it and be prepared to laugh a few pounds off.
Nate’s Grade: B
Share this:
Daredevil (2003)
Not as bad as it could have been. That’s the best way to sum up Ben Affleck in tights.
Nate’s Grade: B-
Share this:
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (2003)
Andie Anderson (Kate Hudson) is a fashion magazine writer with the juiciest column of her up and coming career. She will catch herself a man then torture him for ten days by subjecting him to mistakes women make in relationships (calling too much, tampons in the medicine cabinet, asking if you look fat). Benjamin Barry (Mathew McConaughey) is a hotshot ad exec convinced he can make any girl fall in love with him. His confidant colleagues put him to the test and select a girl he has ten days to fall in love with him. Any guesses which lucky lady gets picked?
Hudson and McConaughey have a weirdly effective chemistry that seems to grow on you as the film continues. The over animated and cutesy antics of Hudson gel nicely with McConaughey’s sly charm and syrupy drawl. Their battle of the sexes doesn’t really reach the simmer and zip of classic screwball comedies but the journey along the way to the predictable coupling is rife with healthy gender-crossing doses of humor.
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days plays its proceedings very close to the chest, following the well-worn path of romantic comedies that have come before. I guess it’s what to be expected when the source material is a picture book. Seriously, look into it. The movie even ends with the Man running against time to stop the Woman leaving on some vehicle set to a moderately upbeat, Top 40 pop song. Yes, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days has its formula down: initial clashing and trashing leads to lip mashing that’s just smashing. This is the kind of film where they hold the leads apart as long as they can and then let ’em at each other.
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days is a decent date for you and your honey, especially if romantic comedies are really your bag. For me, the lack of surprises gave me much time to think and three things kept circulating in my brain: 1) Aren’t too many romantic comedies today built upon some premise of deceit? Isn’t this a bad idea to start a relationship?, and, 2) Does Mathew McConaughey always act this stoned?
Nate’s Grade: C+
Share this:
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)
The premise is undeniably amusing: game show host and creator Chuck Barris (Sam Rockwell) in between escorting Dating Game couples and introducing Gong Show losers, was a hired killer for the CIA. The directorial debut by George Clooney is impressive on a technical level. Clooney is inventive with scene changes, camera angles, lighting, editing, color palettes … I don’t know whether to champion him or credit his excellent cinematographer, but hats off to whomever designed the look of this movie. Rockwell is great and carries the film well, though I think he lacks the proper ability for self-loathing that the character needs. The brilliant weirdness of the story is tempered by famed scribe Charlie Kaufman’s astute sense of the intricately bizarre. Kaufman is a master of the offbeat, but he does more with his story structures and the ability to keep surprising than any other screenwriter. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind is a cheeky diversion into the unauthorized autobiography written by Barris himself. The movie itself is one big joke and Clooney tells it like a pro.
Nate’s Grade: B+
Share this:
Better Luck Tomorrow (2002)
This film shows a fascinating side to the underbelly to suburban malaise. The story centers on a group of Asian-American friends that are social delinquents and petty criminals that can get away with it because theyre star students. Its an interesting dichotomy in Justin Lin’s directorial debut. The cast is strong and the pacing is brisk. The opening five minutes yanks you into this world and places you in the hands of a confidant voice. Familiar elements abound like unrequited love, jealousy, crashing lows, but Better Luck Tomorrow gives them a mildly fresh spin. The films familiar territory gets the better of it in a languid final act, but the ride is still an enjoyable and entertaining one at that.
Nate’s Grade: B
nathanzoebl 
You must be logged in to post a comment.