Believable and welcome South American life-in-the-ghetto diary, but ultimately too character cluttered, repeating and limited.

Rating: 7/10 (26 December 2004)

The violent, and often shambolic, life and times of the Rio de Janeiro favela (or slum) told from the point of view of two contrasting former schoolboy friends. Filmed in the modern "shaky hand-held camera" fashion to give it a documentary look-and-feel.
(Something we will return to later.)
The great problem with the English speaking mass cinema audience is that they rarely go anywhere abroad outside of tourist traps and have little interest in the Third World. Well outside of outrageous disasters - whether man-made or natural - which quickly slip from our TV screens or newspapers within days of their conclusion.
Therefore when cinema takes a stroll down these new avenues it comes as a complete surprise to the virgin audience who get the full head trip. So Brazil is not all long beaches, endless samba beat and sexy girls in dental floss thongs? Well I didn't know that! Shock! Horror! Something must be done!
(IMDb always seems to give a bonus mark for a new and different location - Cidade de Deus being only the latest recipient.)
For most this product will be the only education about the Brazilian favela (slum) that they will ever get - but at least it is a believable portrait. Nevertheless it is not the last word on the subject and covers only limited ground. Indeed it is a classic example of a film that starts well - loses its way in the middle section - before it arrives at the only climax (and closing impression) which is conceivable.
A bit more social context about Brazilian class society would have been welcome - but maybe the budget didn't run to it. Not travelling back in time. This film's idea of background detail is a lone period car! We needed the "other Brazil" - but, baring a few voice-over references all we get is a few token scenes in a supermarket or in a newspaper office.
(The media types are shown as friendly, warm and caring in perfect contrast to the police who are shown as being totally corrupt. Almost on a parallel to the gangsters. I wonder which camp the writer comes from?)
This film has been compared to Goodfellers, and I can see why, but it isn't really in its league. If anything it is a home movie version of the Scorsese classic and needs constant voice-over and subtitles in order for it to make sense. Even with it I was lost several times, but that may have been trying to keep track of too many characters that looked - because of the passing of time - nothing like they did when first introduced!
The plot is curiously male orientated when sex is not involved. Do these gangsters not have mothers, sisters, social workers, teachers or sensible relatives? The types that crop up in 40's Warner Brothers gangster pictures to give balance to the criminals and their life views. Overall the script spends too long in the gang hut with the venom-spitting hoods who alternate only between loading weapons and smoking dope.
There is no real conventional acting in this movie, there is no need for it. Ducking, diving, shooting guns and looking scared is not that hard. Yes it convinces, but stupid/reckless/desperate Third World people are hard to pin down, how can you say anything is wrong? They march to a different drum.
Here leadership seems awarded for recklessness as much as brains, but they have nowhere to go and little to say. Why should they? They have no education. There is only one business (drugs) and there is only one punishment for those that go against the interests of that business.
(Once you establish life is cheap and taken on a whim, you don't need to go there again unless it is essential or part of the grand climax.)
I am not all that fond of hand-held camera work. It allows you run around and this only results in lots of scenes of people running around. This establishes it as a real location, but doesn't really add any sense of composure. There are times when I feel I was running with the gang as part of it - while I really wanted to be a cold and distant condemning witness.
Yes there is lots of questions, quibbles and short comings, but it is a powerful and thought provoking film. But it rather suffers from the Holocaust syndrome: It is hard to criticise the film without seeming to attack the honourable subject. Maybe director Fernando Meirelles has something - he certainly includes some masterful scenes here - but the limited characters overstay their welcome. I wouldn't want to watch it again.