City of God

[Cozak]

Awesome film if you into your gangster films and such make this a one to see, not your typcial gangster film and you forget about the subtitles within minutes. Its from Brazil and wasnt released in main stream cinemas, probably due to the subtitles, found it in my local blockbusters though and watched it 3 times in a row. watch it!!

 

[Karam_Gruul]

very good film. well well well violant and just plain funny in some parts. (shooting children, does it GET any better?)

kinda the brazilian equivilant to good fellas

 

[Healer McHeal]

will probbly have to have a look at it, been watching alot more films recently then i used to, will have a look at it at least

 

[Taen]

I agree .. one of the best films of the year and it should have picked up an oscar

 

[Cozak]

Yeah it was nominated for 11 i think, but LoTR stole them all! But i think i loved LoTR more than this movie

 

[Healer McHeal]

LoTK, it had to get them really, the story and background of it is amazing, tolkien was one hell of a writer

 

[Jonaldo]

Yep one dimensional stereotypical characters with no real history, he was great

Not a bad story but LOTR isn't exactly a deep book, if it was shorter or split into smaller parts (as has been done now) it's a good fantasy story for youngsters to get into the genre.

 

[Sigurd]

Hardly stereotypical when he created the entire fantasy genre...

 

[Garok]

Hardly stereotypical when he created the entire fantasy genre...

Not sure he created an entire fantasy genre since most of the basis was ripped streight out of old celtic and Norse Mytholigy..

Kinda of like the Beatles of Fanatasy fiction .. not original by any means but popularised a genre..

 

[Healer McHeal]

well i love the lotr story, and the ones before it, like the hobbit etc, he was a very good writer, and i loved the story, so ill stick with my statement of lotr deserved them

 

[Munkey]

LOTR bored me when I read it, he's not the best of writer and tends to ramble. However, much preferred the books to the film. The first film was great, the second got a bit too violent, the third was just all fighting.

My analysis of Return of the King: RING! talk talk RING! fight fight fight talk fight fight RING! fight fight fight fight talk RING! talk RING! talk talk fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight talk fight talk talk talk fight fight fight RING! talk end.

 

[Ormorof]

the book was hard to read, since there was just sooooooooooooooooooooooo much detail it got dull to read it all

but no matter how much i put it down i always came back

 

[Sarum]

There is a lot of depth to Middle Earth, Tolkien just isn't necessarily great at getting it across. He has a tendency to kinda assume you know as much about it as he does, and therefore not fully explain characters backgrounds and motives. (Of course, the films NEVER explain these things, and are very 1 dimensional and stereotypical.. but they are essentially action films and you can't expect any different from them). A lot of the stuff is in little throw away comments, and you have to put 2 and 2 (and 1 and 3,4,5,6 11 and 106) together to get the full picture. And you have to read all the appendixes (including the languages ones, which do contain story and history elements if you look for them). And probably the Silmarinian (which I don't have with me, so can't spell) too.

Tolkiens characters seem very stereotypical now, but that is essentially because he created a whole genre... yes, he cribbed a lot from Norse and Celtic mythology, but there wasn't lot of 'grown up' fiction containing elves and dwarves and suchlike about. Since then, Tolkiens definitions of what elves, dwarves and goblins are has become the norm, they are what everyone understands by the terms, and very few authors go against it.

 

[Sigurd]

Not sure he created an entire fantasy genre since most of the basis was ripped streight out of old celtic and Norse Mytholigy..

Kinda of like the Beatles of Fanatasy fiction .. not original by any means but popularised a genre..

I know, he used a lot of Norse mythological ideals (just read Saga Volsunga, you can even recognize Gollum in there) but no-one really read mythology unless they were forced to by schools (which is a shame as there's some very interesting myths out there) so Tolkien shaped these myths into his own "myth" - which is what fantasy is really, myths invented by the writer. Thus I'd have to say he created the genre - and, to me, there's nothing quite like a good fantasy book, and nothing I've read comes close to The Lord of the Rings... most people will agree that Gandalf appears pretty much how they imagined him to in the film, same for other characters - you have to be a damned good writer to make everyone picture a character in the same way.
A lot of people argue that Tolkien's characters weren't fully fledged out - this is a problem with many books in my eyes, but I disagree for the most part - Frodo and Sam we get to know very well, whilst the others seen perhaps more remote - that's how Tolkien wanted it, as the hobbits are supposed to be surrounded by bigger, grander things and beings than themselves. Anyway, sorry to have dragged this completely off-topic, I'm sure the gangster film is good

 

[Aerisa]

utter film tbh

Benny is the cool.

Gonna watch 'Amores Perros' next. One of those if you liked 'city of god' you'll like this film, or so i've heard.

 

[Damon_D]

Not sure he created an entire fantasy genre since most of the basis was ripped streight out of old celtic and Norse Mytholigy..

Kinda of like the Beatles of Fanatasy fiction .. not original by any means but popularised a genre..

Plz dont compare him to Beatles, no need to insult the dead like that.. and no I dont mean the dead puff from Beatles..... He deserved it for the crap music imho........