Originally posted by Chris Knipp
These passages are interesting but mistaken. The boys glorify violence, but the movie doesn't.
The narrator is one of the boys, an insider. The film would have to provide an alternative p.o.v. to counter the prevailing tone. As it is, the boys' attitude towards violence permeates the film.

Much of the treachery and violence unfold in what could be described only as a party atmosphere (New York Times)

City of God is not an artistic heir to Pixote. It's essentially a tarted-up exploitation picture whose business is to make ghastly things fun (L.A. Weekly)

The work comes with its own built-in shield against feeling any character's difficulties too deeply, or for too long(Entertainment Weekly)


Originally posted by Chris Knipp The Chicago Reader passage contradicts itself. City of God is obviously profoundly steeped in its location, and that location is contemporary Brazil: it is madness or blindness not to see that. City of God "invites us to contemplate from a safe distance," the Chicago Reader says? Nonsense!
The key word is contemporary. The distance here is temporal as the events depicted end roughly 20 years ago. Makes it easy for folks to claim: "Oh, it's not that bad anymore" or some variation of "the conditions that created that horror have changed". Anyway, the film is calculated to awe not to move you. It could have done both.

I am made queasy by films that take impoverished young non-actors, then package the squalor and violence of their lives for the consumption of viewers safely removed from such realities (L.A. Times)

I would feel less "queasy" if the film were less eager to provide visceral thrills galore at any cost.