After a whole load of hype 4/5 star reviews great IMDB I went and saw this film and what a waste it was. Boring, looked low budget, rubbish story, uneventful and utterly dreadful. I was struggling to keep my eyes open after the first hour.
I have voted this a 2/10 on IMDB and I suggest those who agreed with me to vote low to make the score more accurate.
I am sure that there are other people who think the same about the film as yourself, although I don't reckon that a very considered opinion. The film is sleazy, dirty, distanced and random as an impressionist portrait of life as lived by these characters in this environment should be. Sure, it's not glamorous and crystal clear Hollywood storytelling, but it doesn't set out to be. It is aiming to strip away all of the bullsh*t from the gangster pic, and show these lives as they actually are - nasty, brutal, short and tragically disposable. There is no redemption for these people, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel for the environment they live and die in. Don't rage just because some filmmaker has actually given you a glimpse of the truth - try to be a bit more sensitive and open to the experience you've been offered.
"This Backwards Day a lot of *beep* ain't it? " - Desperate Living
I don't think the film was bollocks, but it wasn't great.
Fuzon, I don't agree with your statement "Sure, it's not glamorous and crystal clear Hollywood storytelling"; nobody said it had to be. There isn't a mythical film spectrum where you're either gritty, sleazy, and realistic otherwise you're Hollywood and formulaic. A useful comparison for this film would be City of God, a film I truly liked. I also think Crash is a useful film also, for different reasons.
I felt that Gomorrah was poorly edited, lacked direction, and was evidently a selection of random stories plucked from the non-fiction book. There were too many characters, with very little interconnectedness; the editing chopped in and out of storylines without cohesion or apparent relevance. There was no spine to the story, no 'roaming' character(s) to connect with and to bind the separate storylines together.
The reason I mention Crash, is because I felt at the time of watching that it was a collection of contrived and stereotypical storylines binded by a theme, rather than anything else. Whilst Gomorrah is much better than Crash, the theme is still reduced to violence, warring, the general underworld and not much else. You get really get to know any of the characters, maybe you're not meant to. But just because it doesn't utilise Hollywood clarity (which I hate) doesn't make this a good film.
It's directionless - perhaps deliberately - but I didn't go to watch a documentary; immobile characters under the guise of realism and choppy editing left me frustrated and wanting more.
" There was no spine to the story, no 'roaming' character(s) to connect with and to bind the separate storylines together."
Does life have some story with a spine?
This movie is about the life napolitans have to live every day in the middle of crime. It doesn't glamourize, or have lenghty action sequences or a romance side-story.
Maybe for spoiled, culture-ignorant americans, this is too much to comprehend. It's a semi-documentary based on reality, not an action film.
Tony Soprano and his crew might have it good in New Jersey, but this is what happens in their point of origin every day. These are the original gangsters. There is nothing mythical or glorious about their life. Wouldn't make such a good show for HBO now would it? Brutal reality...
Does City of God 'glamourize, or have lenghty action sequences or a romance side-story'? No, but it has been made in such a way that the reality of the situation is portrayed in a far superior manner than just a collection of short stories.
I don't watch The Sopranos, I'm not American, 60% of the films I watch in the cinema nowadays are foreign. I don't claim to be a culture supremo, I tend to go and to a place called the Filmhouse Cinema where, by and large, the choices of films I can watch are made for me. So I'm not claiming to be knowledgable, or cultural, but I do enjoy foreign films far more - in general - than either homegrown or American ones.
So, I didn't want an action film, I wanted the filmmakers to provide the audience with a sense of meaning rather than just reality. La Haine, for example, portrays the brutal reality of the Parisian suburbs - whilst still using central characters that roam through the various lives of others, and introduce us to other characters they entail and how their lives are meaningful in such a context. It's more natural, more realistic to see how one life evolves. This film is, again, a random selection of people's lives without any attempt to deliver *meaning* for want of a better word. It's not a documentary, it's a piece of fiction; sure, it's designed to show the reality of the situation, but it isn't real life. You keep saying that it's the brutal reality this film offers vs. Hollywood glamorisation. This isn't the case; the brutal reality of this film isn't reliant upon the structure this film uses. It could be just as gritty and realistic with a more masterful approach to dealing with the characters, better editing.
The film was gritty and realistic, but so are a lot of films. If you're making a film, rather than a documentary, it needs to have more. And your comments about 'spoilt, culture-ignorant americans' are utterly irrelevant to an otherwise relevant debate. It's not a personal slight against you if someone has a difference of opinion. I'm not American, I'm not culture ignorant; so please don't assume so, it could make you just as ignorant.
For me, this film just needed a focal point; and it is a film. The screen time for each character was inconsistent and not adequate for characterisation. Even documentaries have 'characterisation'; they're not just fly-on-wall, direct reality.
"So, I didn't want an action film, I wanted the filmmakers to provide the audience with a sense of meaning rather than just reality."
But the structure of Gomorrah did provide meaning - the film means that the lives of these people are nasty, brutal, short and hopeless. It means that they are connected in a loose, very loose, network of organised crime in which no one actually connects person to person. All of this IS meaning, and it's a shocking and disturbing one. These people have no God, no law, no love, no social services to look after them or believe in. The film's structure and techniques do everything to emphasise this.
"This Backwards Day a lot of *beep* ain't it? " - Desperate Living
I thank you, Fuzon, for sharing that. Genuinely. I believe we have taken the exact same interpretation:
"no one actually connects person to person. All of this IS meaning, and it's a shocking and disturbing one. These people have no God, no law, no love, no social services to look after them or believe in."
However, I think you and I simply differ in terms of what we want from a film. I'm going to reiterate films like La Haine - which can be described in exactly the same way - but show us the nuances of life. Yes, life is endlessly depressing, yes a lot of people are suffering. But this film is not a piece of art; it in no way tells a story beyond filming what is already there. I am going to perhaps come across as ignorant and idealistic but there is more to life than hopelessness. Yes, people struggle through the scenarios we are shown - but endless scenes of nothingness, bland characters given little development is what fails to make this film engaging.
Where do filmmakers stop? What makes the Italian mafia story more relevant than showing the death and famine in Africa? Is this what films are meant to do - reduce life to only the grim realities? I agree that the only message in this film is bleakness, death, hopelessness, and Godlessness. There were glimmers of friendship and love between the two boys, but dealt with callously and sharply to render any generation of interest in their story pointless. Their death was inevitable. Furthermore, I didn't really care that anyone died because there was no characterisation, there was no story. It was like *shrug*, I guess this is how it is. These are just strangers to me dying, the same as the strangers that die every day in the news. For the audience to truly engage and care, for the underlying message of this film to deliver what it is trying to deliver, it needed characters. And this is why my reaction to the bleakness, in that it just washed over me thanks to too many meaningless characters, is different to yours. After all, it IS a film depicting real life rather than real life itself. And there is a massive difference.
"I am going to perhaps come across as ignorant and idealistic but there is more to life than hopelessness."
Idealistic certainly (although you are certainly not ignorant). Definitely, for some people there is hope, but really for these people there is none. One of the jobs of Art is to show a vision of Reality, which as T S Elliot said man cannot bear too much of. I appreciate movies which offer hope when there can be hope, and those that have the courage to look into the abyss and see when there really is none. That is one of the jobs of Art as well.
I think it's a pretty bourgeois notion of character you are talking about, to be honest. These people are merely instinct and empty vessels, filled with whatever their environment has to offer them. Of course there is a kind of love between the two boys, but all they can think of to do with it is bond in chaotic destruction - and that is sadly true of some people. Without education and culture, this is what human beings are, and we would be wise not to sentimentally conclude that there's any innate goodness or social abilities in anyone. To emphasise, there CAN BE no characters as you wish them to be in that environment, and the film shows these people as they are, and not how one might wish them to be.
"This Backwards Day a lot of *beep* ain't it? " - Desperate Living
Fuzon,
I think you're totally right. I think what we've established is that when I go to the cinema (and I must add that my reactions are often mood-based, which is why I endeavour to see films more than once if I have excessive reactions to them - good or bad) I am not looking to watch empty vessels for a couple of hours, without the ability to truly engage with their environment. I must add that this is purely a personal reflection, and not one of the film per se. I suppose I would consider myself hypocritical feeling touched and moved throughout the duration of the film at their plight, the unjust nature of their life and life in general, as I try to convince myself that I understand the trials of such a culture before leaving the cinema and forgetting about it after a day. I didn't feel those things; perhaps it is my small brain that has become desensitized to violence and murder, or perhaps the film was lacking *something* but, for want of a better cliche, art is perenially subjective.
Brilliantly shot.
Excellent acting.
Massive potential (depending on your viewpoint).
Valid message.
However, in the end it was me that left this film feeling empty. Sometimes that's just how life goes: the hoplessness of cinematic plight. Sounds like a great film just dying to be made! (Joke).
P.S. Apologies for having to add '(joke)' - but you know what 90% of the IMDb population is like.
This criticism of Gomorra as a documentary-style film ("a selection of random stories plucked from the non-fiction books...i didn't go to watch a documentary") seems a little unjust to me. Tim bidet, you seem to have taken against the film simply because you were expecting something else. La Haine and City of God are ultimately unfair comparisons. Of course they share similar pre-occupations (the plight of the lower social classes, violence and bare suburban living) and they seek to inform, educate, and provoke intellegent debate - but ultimately both City of God and La Haine contrive to entertain: through swift editing, colourful characters and expertly bringing several strands of the story together at the end, as you have noted. (When you say "Does City of God 'glamourize, or have lenghty action sequences or a romance side-story'?, the answer, in comparison to Gomorra is actually yes: there are extended gun battles, there is a love story, and there is to some extent an exoticisisation of being laid-back in Brazil, even if the children do have guns). Gomorra succeeds precisely because it strips away the constructs of fiction (not Hollywood! you're right, it's nothing to do with Hollywood). Its roots are not in the gangster genre, but in social realism. A far more relevant comparison today would acually be the French film Couscous (French title 'La Graine et le Mulet'). Why can't a fiction film aspire to be a documentary? Who says a film has to entertain if there are other ways to inspire, provoke and educate us, and have us hanging on to every scene to boot?
Of course, La Haine and City of God also succeed in depicting a harrowing reality, and they entertain us with exciting storytelling at the same time. I'm not doubting the legitimacy of these films, and they merit their position in the pantheon of successful and well-recieved films of the last decade. Gomorra combines a story of mafia corruption with a painstaking documentary-style approach and I don't like to think that it should be criticised for doing so. It is certainly not an "empty vessel" of a film, even if (and i agree with you) it's characters' attempts to escape their base existence do coming to nothing and there is a chilling inevitability of the two deaths at its climax. It's emotionally very difficult. There is no end in sight.
A good point well-made. I wouldn't say that my criticism of the film is designed to be objective; merely that the style was unappealing to me. I didn't actually know anything about the film before I saw it, so my reaction is totally pure and my comparisons totally uninfluenced.
My main issue is that, in my sitting, there was little to "inspire, provoke and educate us, and have us hanging on to every scene to boot".
I think a point I made regarding the documentary aspect is that even documentaries aren't direct cross-sections of a social phenomenon; they are carefully constructed with a narrative, either preemptively or reactively, to deliver the subject matter. The point being that a documentary often has that 'roaming character' that I mentioned in an earlier post, that one person that wanders through the lives of the story providing the focal point; usually the narrator/presenter. This is a documentary without that narrator/documentor, with nothing that holds everything together; I was criticised for wanting a Hollywood take on the film, whereby my desire for that centrality was deemed 'glamourisation' and not a fair reflection of real life. If this is docu-film, it's a docu-film without a presenter. It's a Big Brother-style, fly-on-the-wall documentary that meant no such 'chilling' sentiments filtered into my cinematic experience.
Of course it always boils down to personal taste. I don't think I called the film an empty vessel; it was a term used by Fuzon with regards to the characters, as empty vessels having been unassigned bourgeois meaning from the filmmaker.
"... gun battles, there is a love story, and there is to some extent an exoticisisation of being laid-back in Brazil"; war, love, and an attempt to define the spirit of Brazil and its community are not constructs of fiction. Exoticisation is perhaps a valid point; but this is my point: war and love are two basic inevitabilities of human existence. Just because Hollywood has hijacked every combination of love-formulae doesn't mean that love and relationships aren't at the basis of the majority of human situations. Love and hate - Gomorrah is totally void of both of these emotions; as a film and a story it simply *is*. And there is no end in sight.
"Love and hate - Gomorrah is totally void of both of these emotions" - I don't believe that's true, Tim. There's a weird kind of love between the two young trouble making thugs, the kid Totò positively exudes the need for love, guidance and kindness as well as (obviously) belonging, the mother who gets killed loves her son very much, the old dressmaker loves his work and sharing it with the Chinese; also, there's plenty of hatred in most of the other characters surely?
"This Backwards Day a lot of *beep* ain't it? " - Desperate Living
Fuzon,
Everything you mention might have been touched upon, hinted at, alluded to throughout this film. However, there are too many separate storylines to get a genuine sense of these emotions. I liked the boys; the glimpses we were given weren't enough. The filmmaker was too busy showing the plight of many, rather than concentrating on the friendship and love between fewer characters. This was my original point; the stories we were provided with were given no chance to develop and flourish.
I wanted to see more of the love between the boys, their strange relationship and bizarre existence. I was told this was Hollywood and glamourisation; that this is not how their life works. That this film was about the bleak reality in which they exist where there is hopelessness, death, loss, and violence. I said that I wanted to see more about the personal relationships of the characters in such a context; again this was labelled glamourisation.
There were glimpses of very interesting storylines throughout this film; and my major, and unwavering criticism of this film, is that none of them are developed. The characters are existing, not interacting; they don't hate each other, they just 'do' out of a warped sense of survival amidst their concept of existence.
There's no hatred in the characters; friends become enemies by switching sides - but not through genuine hatred. The film is stuck in the middle of a spectrum of love and hate, whereby it didn't strike a chord at either end.
This is an extremely accurate description of this mediocre film, tim bidet
shareYeah but this is a movie. All that stuff you said, I don't like it. Too much going on, too confusing, I couldn't keep up and the movie made me feel stupid. They could have had such a great movie here (think Goodfellas or Sopranos) but the writers and directors screwed it all up by trying to 'mean something'. In the attempt to 'mean something more' they failed and instead made a second-rate Sopranos wannabe movie that's too long. The fact it takes place in Italy is so.. pretentious. All the other Mafia movies (I'm a huge mafia buff reading and watching stuff about the mafia is what I do and I'm the best at it) take place in USA. The people who made this low-budget crud where obviously using the setting of Italy to get people interested, bait and switch if you will. They say "Here's a great mafia film that takes place in Italy how awesome is that how cool are we our movie stands above the rest". So you give it a chance, expecting maybe a really hardcore version of Sopranos or Goodfellas and instead you get this *beep* dribble nonsense poop.
To boil it all down, this movie is pretentious crap. Even Bronx Tale was better than this movie and that movie wasn't even as good as Casino. These are the films people want to watch, not whatever the *beep* this 'movie' was.
They could have gotten the 'raw grit real life' feel if they had chosen to make it into a reality-tv-movie. Like blair Witch project except with mafia gangsters, would have been so much cooler.
I couldn't even stomach this crappy movie I turned it off after 5 minutes and I'm pretty sure most other people did too.
I felt that Gomorrah was poorly edited, lacked direction, and was evidently a selection of random stories plucked from the non-fiction book. There were too many characters, with very little interconnectedness; the editing chopped in and out of storylines without cohesion or apparent relevance. There was no spine to the story, no 'roaming' character(s) to connect with and to bind the separate storylines together.
Well said, this movie was ok. I gave it a 6 because of all the aforementioned things.
Was leaning towards a 5.
Exodus 35:2 Whoever does any work on Sabbath must be put to death. Go God!
"I felt that Gomorrah was poorly edited, lacked direction, and was evidently a selection of random stories plucked from the non-fiction book. There were too many characters, with very little interconnectedness; the editing chopped in and out of storylines without cohesion or apparent relevance. There was no spine to the story, no 'roaming' character(s) to connect with and to bind the separate storylines together. "
If it was a selections of random stories then why would you expect "interconnectedness" and cohesion?
It certainly takes a while to appreciate this movie. In my opinion it is a masterpiece partly due to the reasons you gave above. It isn't supposed to be a story with a beginning a middle and an end. There are no characters to connect with because who would want to connect with a cold blooded killer? There are no heroes in this movies. It is a window to look into the cycle of violence that occurs in real life. It is a snapshot of life, and as we discuss this movie that life continues. Young boys recruited as killers, people living in fear, corruption, murder, shooting automatic rifles while semi-naked.
Blade Runner II: Rachel's Revenge
Release Date: 2010
actually, city of god DOES have a romance side story.
share> Does City of God 'glamourize, or have lenghty action sequences or a romance side-story'?
Of course it does. City of God is cyncial hyped up over-hyped sub-Scorsese garbage. Gomorra, on the other hand, is a very strong piece of of work that subtly insinuates itself into a hidden world with utter conviction. But, of course, you want your narrative cliches and your 'empathy' and your 'character development' - whatever...
Agree that City of God is a completely cynical piece of work.
'(When you say "Does City of God 'glamourize, or have lenghty action sequences or a romance side-story'?, the answer, in comparison to Gomorra is actually yes: there are extended gun battles, there is a love story, and there is to some extent an exoticisisation of being laid-back in Brazil, even if the children do have guns).'
That pretty much sums up why I loathe that film. It takes on the mantle of social realism and makes a complete mockery of Brazil and its people's suffering. There's nothing wrong with getting off on violence in films but I think people (the filmmaker of COG included) should have the temerity to admit as much.
Gomorrah, on the other hand, was a completely different kettle of fish. I hadn't considered rating it but now I think I'll give it a '10' just to spite the stingy OP.
@Tim Bidet: An incredibly thoughtful and on-point critique of the film. I agree 100%.
shareAre you proposing a syllogism in which people who find the movie edited/cut strangely must be "culture-ignorant americans?"
Maybe you should enlighten the rest of us plagued by a paucity of culture? I would be the first to sign up for Hellraiser's Culture Classes.
Next time you write AMERICANS, capitalize the "A"...boy.
Oh, yeah. Because if someone doesn't like the same film as you or agree with your points they MUST be American...
GTFO. It's getting tired.
[deleted]
My thoughts exactly, you couldn't have said it any better. I thought it had some flashes of the book scattered here and there, with no depth whatsoever. Overrated due to the tragedy sorrounding Saviano.
shareShezno1, you're right.
It looks low budget, it has rubbish story. It's a Z-movie.
Please do not trust that's the best Italian movie in last years.
The most of them (much better than Gomorra) never go abroad so you cannot know them. Two examples: "Romanzo criminale" and "Arrivederci amore ciao".
z movie for sure gigi,
and city of god makes this movie look like a turd.
Some replies like they tried to make it real not like sopranos, u are dumb! If someone documented my life and made it into a film with truth the movie would be bollocks.
Would people really come out of the cinema and say wow that was a great movie, It was slow, boring and uneventful but it was so real.
The whole point of a good movie is for it to entertain.
And was it good. NO!
I'm sure a film could be so real and so entertaining at the same.
Some critics misunderstood realism with non-appeal.
And some audience loves too much to act like critics.
"The most of them (much better than Gomorra) never go abroad so you cannot know them. Two examples: "Romanzo criminale" and "Arrivederci amore ciao"."
Wrong. I've seen "Romanzo Criminale" and thought it was one of the biggest wastes of time ever. Completely derivative, copying every American cliche in the book. And waaay too long at 2.5 hours.
Maybe "Arrivederci amore ciao" is better.
[deleted]
"I've seen "Romanzo Criminale" and thought it was one of the biggest wastes of time ever. Completely derivative, copying every American cliche in the book. And waaay too long at 2.5 hours."
Derivative by a true story, not by American clichés.
As non-Italian, you don't know that Scorsese and co. are THEY derivative by old Italian gangster movies ("Gli intoccabili" and "Ad ogni costo" by Giuliano Montaldo, "C'era una volta in America" by Sergio Leone, "Colpo maestro al servizio segreto di Sua Maestà " by Michele Lupo, the serial "La piovra", "Il camorrista" by Tornatore, many poliziotteschi films re-made by USA on large-scale etc.)
Expecially De Palma is a robber of Italian gialli and crime-stories.
That's a truth.
If you think that non-boring films could made only by Americans, you're wrong.
"If you think that non-boring films could made only by Americans, you're wrong."
You could not be further from the truth. I hold no brief whatsoever for a lot of American films, I'm not American and I do watch a lot of world cinema.
The films you have quoted have, by and large, gone unremarked by mainsteam audiences for obvious reasons. The same happens to any country's cinema output which is smaller (and often better) than that of the US.
Whether films are English, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean - you name it, if they are successful in their own countries then the US will copy them. The worst example of this I can think of recently was 'The Departed' which was a sick joke compared to the Hong Kong original.
Your dislike aside, I think it's a bit immature to use that technique to lower a film's rating to make it more 'accurate'. It suggests close-mindedness and unwillingness to accept the opinions of others. What comes across is that you're a bit peeved that you didn't 'get' it and are looking for reassurrance, and the fact that you struggled after the first hour suggests a lack of commitment too. Anyway, if you're intention is to lower the overall score, why not give it a 1/10?
I thought it was excellent. Shot with more panache than the reviews had led me to believe with their talk of 'gritty realism' and such. There was understated humour throughout and some striking, almost surreal, images.
I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Wow, I struggle to see how anyone who knew what kind of movie this was going to be could find it "utterly dreadful". It was so damn realistic, you didn't even know the camera was there. Everything form the camerawork, to the acting (even the young kids), script, cinematography was spot on. I couldn't fault it on any of those counts.
Unfortunately we have grown accustomed to films with neat plots with a specific beginning and an end to poo-poo anything diverging from the norm. A shame because I was thoroughly absorbed, even before finding out there is no specific storyline, but rather a bleak tale of life in a Naples council estate, which is pretty much run by the Mafia. No fiction to speak of here, this is actually happening here and now. I shall refrain from the usual "go watch your Transformers and 300 then!"-type comments, as they are condescending and insulting, but I will advise you to read synopses more carefully in future, as it may prevent you from experiencing such disappointment. Especially as you list
"looked low budget" as a fault. Rather baffling.
Ironically, this isn't even ironic at all.
[deleted]
Yhis film is trash and Nathanael says bulls*its.
shareThis movie was a bad structural imitation of 21, Crash, Amores Perros and all the other movies with intertwined stories. Difference was, the other were interesting to watch even in their grittiness and sadness. This one was incredibly boring. You have to be an Italian to think this is interesting stuff.
share"You have to be an Italian to think this is interesting stuff. "
Or just open-minded?
This movie is a factual depiction of how life is like in Naples. It's not boring. Be open-minded, realize that life is different outside the shell you live in. Explore the world.
[deleted]
I actually walked out half way through after falling asleep. I'm normally a fan of Italian cinema and I enjoyed the book, but I just felt very bored sitting there watching this.
"Enough is enough. I've had it with these snakes"
-- Neville Flynn, Snakes on a Plane
Nice quote.
I bet you sat through all of Snakes on a Plane, because that film is intellectually stimulating and far less boring than Gomorra, right?
Some of you posters on here crack me up. I don't understand why you would walk out of this film if you typically enjoy Italian cinema and you read the book. It doesn't make sense to me. It's not boring, it is one of the best pieces of Italian cinema in a while. But then again, if you're quoting characters from Snakes on a Plane, then maybe this movie isn't for you.
What I hate are people like the OP - "the story wasn't good, therefore neither was the film" views.
Absolute twaddle.
Oh, dear. I found something unabashedly unintellectual funny and used it as a signature. Perhaps "bandon hope all ye who enter here" would be better? Or is Dante below you, too?
"Enough is enough. I've had it with these snakes"
-- Neville Flynn, Snakes on a Plane
Can't help but compare it to the City of God which is a far superior film based on largely the same subject matter. I have to agree this film is much too overhyped, having only watched it a couple of hours ago I cannot recall one memorable moment.
shareI agree City of God is a great film. But it should not be compared to this movie. City of God is like Tarantino in Brazil. It's more akin to a Hollywood flick. Gomorra is like De Sica in Naples. Two different films, both great.
shareIt also harks back to Los Olividados and other fiction/documentary hybrids.
I loved the film. I was expecting, indeed looking out for, the intersection points for the various stories, and after a while realised this wasn't going to happen, that the film was aiming for something different.
Most of the central characters thought they could dip their toes into the waters of corruption and emerge unscathed - but we, as an audience, could see that the world they were in was much more complex and corrupt than they could actually see from their own limited perspectives.
So instead of narrative progress, moving towards a conventional climax or denouement - even in films like La Haine or city of God - I found a growing sense of dread and horror. The violence and murders were so random and unexpected that I was prepared for the two lads to meet the grisly end they got. I think most of the audience would have seen that coming - they were such imbeciles!
For me, there was enough character development - all the main characters conveyed their essence through tiny gestures or private looks such as the tailor's obvious pleasure in his work (Scarlett'sdress) and there was enough empathy with the character. I was shocked and appalled when the pretty boy had no choice but to betray his kindly neighbour, and in general I admired the understated treatment and avoidance of melodrama and conspicuous cleverness (although these were the things I enjoyed in La Haine and City of God).
Great film.
great review by someone who is clearly knowledgeable about making films. I also thought it was excellent and hope it wins best foreign film @ the oscars. I would love to go see it at my local cinema
shareI thank the people who are willing to say that this movie is "bollocks" - it had no plot, no characterizations, no compelling reason to make me want to watch. If I wanted to see gang life stripped of any glamor and brought to its bare minimum, I would rather read (look at) a photojournalism essay, or watch a documentary. The whole IDEA of narrative film is to humanize a part of the world, but movies that only depict the most violent, most nihilistic parts only alienates the audience. It is impossible for us to understand these characters and the world they live in if the director is insisted on keeping us as far away from them as possible. All film is subjective. Every stylistic approach creates or conforms to a societal script. Movies like this that use minimal plot, shaky camera work, rough editing convince the audience that this world is chaotic and utterly irredeemable.
shareAnyone ELSE? I expect a sea of raised hands. This movie is like an attempt to combine CITY OF GOD (an excellent film) and TRAFFIC (a good one) but without the virtues of either...except the director's eye for using vastness (the apartment city, the quarry) in interesting ways. But despite the decent look of the film, there is no room for drama, empathy or anything but oh-so-chic, pseudo-realist brutality and despair. A near-total botch...and, yes, bollocks, for sure.
We don't get that here. People ski topless smoking dope, so irony's not a high priority.
Aw poor you... (I quoted Tony Soprano's mother for ya)
Too real for you to handle? I know it's hard to watch, but that's the point. Nothing's tied up in a neat little bow in this film. It attempts to represent reality. Nothing's botched.
"there is no room for drama, empathy or anything but oh-so-chic"
Um... what exactly are you saying here? Sounds a little pretentious if you ask me.
The film is completely objective. It presents facts as they are. It does not add melodrama in parts and tell you when to feel sad and when to be happy, and who to empathize with. It just asks you to digest it. Obviously this movie wasn't for you. But it's an incredible film nonetheless.
Scorsese has recently gone on record praising the film, and I commend him for it! You can read about it... there's a link in one of the threads here titled "Scorsese on Gomorrah"
I can't believe people say there were no memorable moments in this film. Purely from a cinematic point of view, there were many astonishing scenes - the enormity of the quarry and the lorries trundling down it, the vast, brutalist beauty of the housing estate, both from the outside and inside, the two friends firing machine guns over the deserted beach... I actually wanted the camera to linger far longer on these images. The slow, sweeping style was perfectly suited to them, and reminded me of La Ville Est Tranquille, another great European film that turns urban decay into something approaching art. Yes it might be a holiday in someone else's misery, but boy, what a view.
shareI agree completely ghost, this movie's images are amazing.
shareI cant believe what im reading on this board. people saying that we are detached fromt he characters and there is no narrative and the stories are not connected enough (like traffic and crash? jeez) I think i felt more connected to the charactrs in this film than any ive seen this year. one of the reasons is that the characters a re real the actors are real. and the dilemnas we see the characters meet show us amazing things about the characters themself and the world in which they live in which friends become enemies without warning in which everyman is fighting for their own survival. we even see the young kid lose his innossence for self preservation/survival.there is a theme and there is a narrative and it may be somewhat loose but they are all connected in that they are differnet cogs in a machine that seems to be a runaway freight train. he imagery is amazing. i cant believe people are saying that it is directionless and poorly edited. these are the strengths of the film. yes it is true that he doesntwrite the story out in black and white and does require the viewer to make some connections for themsleves but if anything that is one thing we dont see enough in movies, where everything is spelled out in plain english in a digestable plot with good guys and bad guys. this movie doesnt judge any of the characters and doesnt look at the people as good and evil. they are trying to survive and under those conditions anything goes. it is difficukt to judge someone in sucha predicament. no one is villanized but we are shown the brute reality of the camorra ina way that calls for action by showing us what we might not want to see. it wants people to wake up. it remins me of black films in the nineties showing the world the american street and gang culture. for me it was more successful than menace to society or boys in the hood or any other ganster film ive seen.
shareI do resent statements such as "yes it is true that he doesntwrite the story out in black and white and does require the viewer to make some connections for themsleves but if anything that is one thing we dont see enough in movies, where everything is spelled out in plain english in a digestable plot with good guys and bad guys". Your implication is that any film differing in style from Gomorrah does so on the basis of scriptwriting, with Gomorrah's being superior.
It's not one or the other; if a film isn't like Gomorrah then it isn't automatically rendered being 'spelt out in plain english in a digestable plot'. Many a film has proved to differ from the style on offer here with, in my opinion, much greater success. Furthermore, they do so without resorting to the things you mention.
[deleted]
Wow, ignorance is truly bliss...
The funny thing is that you are actually right in a certain way, but you wont ever understand why.
You can see, but you cant comprehend, it`s like a dog standing in front of CERN. It can see it just like everyone else, but has no clue that it`s supposed to be more than a corner to piss on (although it obviously is a corner to piss on as well in a way...)
It's like a dog standing in front of a house. That house means something to a very select few, whilst to everyone else it's just another house. At least pissing on that house gives it an extra function.
If one can't spell mediocre, one shouldn't type it in capital letters to support one's point.
IMDB scoring is waaaaay of the target on this one! This movie bored me to half to sleep! Saying that it's -->MEDICORE<-- is an overstatement. Complete rubbish.
share