MovieChat Forums > Tsotsi (2006) Discussion > Amateurish and sluggish

Amateurish and sluggish

posted 18 years ago by smelybum
70 replies | jump to latest

Does anyone agree that this film is horribly overated? I cant belive it won best foreign film Oscar and others. Essentially the films o.k, its a great story with an on par performance from Presley Chweneyagae, while the soundtrack is probably the best thing about it. But my gosh it feels like it was filmed by students, the editing is sluggish, which creates an aggrivating pace to the entire film. The camera work is boaring, in parts its cheasy, the direction is tame, and the majority of the dialaogue is stale, e.g ''he went out to work one day... and never came back'', come on guys this is childs play. I think the post-production team may have let the side down a little, the sound recordist has just failed in my opinion, notice the dogs bark, broken glass, gun shots, foot steps, all recorded at strange levels. As i mentioned before the film is cut to an 'epic' pace - yet few of the performaces are able to hold the extended time on screen. Obvioulsy many will disagree, but if you watch again look out for these issues i've mentioned. I just wanna say i dont have a huge problem with the film, i even kind of enjoyed it, my problem is with the fact that a film which is technically floored, should not win oscars.

[–] zc473451 18 years ago

I am a huge foreign movie and art house movie fan and I will have to agree with you that I found this film to be a let down. I absolutely loved City of God (probably my favorite movie of all time) so when I heard people comparing it to Tsotsi, I had to see it. I actually found the plot to be very Hollywoodish, and I felt like I had seen the same story thousands of times. The acting wasn't great, but it was fine for the movie I thought. I was just bored by the plot mainly. It was touching but I think this film was highly overrated for what it ended up being... which is just a fairly solid decent movie.

[–] burttheswimmer 18 years ago

Comparisons with City of God are unfair, and seem simply to be based around the concept of gangster culture in another country. The films are not only very different in content, but in style too. Just look at the varying use of pace. The fast cutting in City's editing gets over the chaos of Rio superbly, but the use of longer takes in Tsotsi have a very different poetry.

This is a little gem of a film, slightly spoiled by people's attempts to pigeonhole it. Look at the characterisation - whether you have been to Southern Africa or not you will surely recognise the moral conflict in Presley's superb performance, the desperate hero-worshipping friend, the class guilt of the middle class blacks.

Beautifully done.

[–] donna416 17 years ago

absolutely spot on assessment. thank you!

[–] roman-army 18 years ago

I agree with the original poster: This film did not deserve its Oscar. I liked Paradise Now a lot more, and it shouldve won. Sophie Scholl had top notch acting too.
(I havent seen the other two)

[–] newyorkergurl24-2 18 years ago

Are you effing kidding me? This movie was amazing. It was powerful and subtle in its points, but I knew exactly what they wanted me to know by the end. It was amazing, and so were it's actors.

[–] baratdoherty 18 years ago

Paradise Now is SO overrated.

[–] Satans_Finest 18 years ago

I liked the acting ALOT, and i agree the soundtrack is the best part. I thought the directing was a bit Michael Mann-ish, who is my fav director so I guess its ok. I cant put my finger on whats wrong with it tho...
But yes, it is something. It gets a 7/10 because halfway thru I left for a smoke heheh.
8-9-10/10's keep me glued to my seat.

[–] desertbm 18 years ago

somehow I never saw all the flaws you mentioned until the second viewing. You know I just didn't notice because I never expected a Hollywood production. I rented the movie hoping for something less plastic and I wasn't dissapointed !!! There were many RAW moments but the violence wasn't gratuitous just disturbing. I assume that is how it would be for thugs in South Africa. I think it all boils down to a low budget film made in a third world country, yet beutifully directed!!!!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dchabashvili 18 years ago

I totally disagree with you!

What does it mean to reject the movie because of technical problems. Its not the camera and sound that make a movie, its people who do and the level of the dog bark is not important here, but the bark itself is and this is communicated.

What does it mean "kind of enjoyed it". Has anyone told you that this will be a fun ride, or you have to watch it to enjoy it. What did you enjoy there, where did you find the joy in the tragedy.

What whats is that s*** with dialogue. We are talking about people who are not educated, who do not have much to say, who try to survive. You never going to hear a French new wave cinema dialogues from the mouth of South African impoverished people.

And about the camera work. One of the guys commented on it in user comments. Is hand-held cam is technically better than static cam work? Why? Why do director and DP choose hand-held cam? Because it is imperative to tell the story, and not because it is stylish or people like you like it (well some do this).

Why did you watch this movie. I know why: to come here and show us how good you are at the technical staff, and how good ear you have to hear that gun shots and foot steps are recorded at a strange levels, and that dialogue is not good enough, and direction is childish, and edition is just garbage and so on.

COME ON!!! This is the Cinema. This is how story should be told. The cinema was about storytelling, always.

Sorry for the attitude, but this is what I think.

[–] kpbaca 18 years ago

Tsotsie was beautifully adapted from a novel, and it was one of the most powerful films I saw all year. The acting was top notch, and the pace of the film flowed perfectly considering the enormous and complex character arc of the protagonist. I mean, honestly, how often do we see movies set in South African townships? And yet you have the nerve to nitpick over a few technical deficiencies? The story was powerful, and the execution did nothing to lose the tremendous gravity of the subject matter. You said, "the directing was tame." I have no clue what that means. You couldn't be less specific. I mean if you have issues with the audio synching, fine, but your overall characterization is of the film is ridiculous. You thought the dialogue was "cheasy," but the best dialogue is meant to fit the characters, so unless you have intimate knowledge of the way poverty-stricken, South African, 20-year-olds speak, you're merely basing your judgment on too rigid a standard. I suppose you preferred Crash?

Why do you hate me? Because you're ugly!
-Welcome to the Dollhouse

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]