User Reviews

The movie is not bad. It is based on the book by the same name by Dominique Lapierre, and if my understanding is right has the author's blessings. The characters even have similar if not same names but it is not the same story. However it is true to the spirit in which the book was written.

Another interesting comparison with the book is that just like the movie, the book is as controversial, especially in India and among middle class Indians and Indians abroad. Indians do not like to speak about their slums to foreigners and do not like foreigners to speak about them by themselves. Rich and middle-class Indians who make about one-fourth of the country are the most influential people in the country and make the interlocutors with the Western world. I know because I am one of them. If our country is our home, this is a skeleton in our closet. And because there is a skeleton in our closet, we try not to step into it and do not let other and hate those who do step in when we are not looking. The controversy is an indication that lot stuff in the movie is actually worth seeing.

Also it is not unusual for a poor man in India to choose to die with dignity than live in shame, Indian girls do flirt even if it is 'untraditional' and there are people who try to live by exploiting the poor, people who most others will call cruel.

The movie could have done a better job capturing the fact that western ideas can affect the way some people in India behave just as Indian ideas make some westerners reformulate their ideas and concepts about life. We can see it here, but this is better captured in the book

So those who do not like the movie try to read the book and those who liked the movie will definitely enjoy the book. As for me, stories of the resilience of Indian slum dwellers only make me more proud to be an Indian.

Although the movie might not have the best direction or not one of the best laid picture it still has a lot of good things. If you have visited India (where it has been primarily filmed) and especially Kolkotta city you would see the realistic nature of movie. It depicts the day to day life of a person below the poverty line. It also highlights the morality of foreigners and NGO's who are trying to help the needy. Very often they have to face resistance from local authorities who either want to exploit the masses or think the foreigners are trying to religiously exploit them. In nut shell I liked the movie.

It's been over a decade since I saw this movie, but despite a lot of criticism it seems to be receiving, I remember how much it touched me way back then.

The story revolves around a disillusioned young American doctor, Max Lowe (played by Patrick Swayze), who goes to India to find himself. He encounters a nun who is trying to set up a free clinic among Calcutta's untouchables, and becomes unable to resist helping her in her struggles. To be honest, I hardly remember Patrick Swayze's role from this movie. I had forgotten he was even in it, and normally associate him with Ghost or Dirty Dancing. I assume he was adequate in the part, as I don't remember otherwise. A reviewer complained he used a lot of profanity, and if so, that would definitely not have been to my liking. I certainly didn't get the impression at the time that they were trying to portray Swayze's character as another Mother Theresa. Frankly, I don't remember the nun either.

The Westerners didn't leave any lasting impression on me. For me, the film was all about the depiction of life among these poorest of the poor, the people to whom the late Mother Theresa devoted her life. Whether portrayed realistically or not, the movie at least elicits viewer awareness of their plight, their poverty and oppression. I recall the squalid living conditions worsened by the monsoons, but also the spirit of some of these so called untouchables.

However, the most memorable aspect of the movie, which has remained with me all these years, is the absolutely endearing Indian farmer, Hasari Pal (played by Om Puri), who has lost his farm and come to Calcutta with his wife and children in order to seek work. Despite his poverty, it is clear that he desires for his family the same basic happiness Westerners want for their own. The relationship he has with his wife is beautiful, as well as with his older daughter, who is having her own romance. (No, not the more realistic arranged marriage, as another commented.) Hasari is truly an unforgettable character that came to embody for me the spirit of India's less fortunate.

This is a movie that calls attention to some of the important truths in life, the overwhelming disparity between rich and poor, and especially the humanity common to us all. Perhaps it's not absolutely true to the culture (dowry etc.) of India, but I fear that some reviewers are, nevertheless, way too hard on it. Suffice it to say, I left the theatre in 1992 feeling uplifted and with food for thought.

This movie is so deep that it touches your heart directly, specially the role played by om puri is inexpressible. Even the role played by patrick swayze was good as he plays an disillusioned doctor. All the casts played good role in the movie.

This movie touches the way of poor people living in calcutta slum, I know because I myself is a bengali and belong to calcutta. The way the poors were reflected in calcutta is actually the way they are treated.

The best quote of the movie was at the end when the movie ends and when om puri says "All that is not given is lost."

Disilusioned American heart surgeon named Max Lowe (Patrick Swayze who lacks some the emotional range) flees to India after losing a patient . In the extremely poor city of Calcutta he is beaten by a street band (led by Art Malik) and being robbed his money and loses the passport but finds help from an ex-farmer named Hazari(Om Puri , excellent as poor but obstinate worker) who takes him to a nearby clinic in the City of Joy , one of Calcutta's poorest areas . Hazari and his family have re-located to Calcutta with hopes of starting a new life , save some money and go back to their village , as well as get Amrita married . There Joan (Pauline Collins who is magnificent for her part) runs a miserable clinic without medicines and recruits the reluctant medic who undergoes a life-changing transformation . Meanwhile Hazari gets a job as a Rickshaw driver through a local godfather, Ghatak and new problems emerge when the exploiter rises the rents .

This is an enjoyable account of the survival of the human spirit against difficulties . The movie is plenty of graphic , striking and memorable moments , dictating a strong emotional response from the spectator . However , the city's portrayal as a magical location where troubles miraculously disappear is unrealistic . Interesting and thought-provoking movie with evident excitement that can sometimes be undercut by inadequacies in the screenplay , being adapted from a book by Dominique Lapierre . This moving picture results to be a breathtaking spectacle , including strong emotions , brooding dialogue and including a heartbreaking final . Beset with antagonism from politicians and inhabitants of Calcutta, director Roland Joffe approached India's leading director Satyajit Ray to condone the production , Joffe tried four times to meet with Ray but he refused each time. Among the problems that beset the production were fire-bombings, mass demonstrations, media criticism, accusations of murder, a skyrocketing budget that eventually settled at the $27 million mark, and Warner Brothers' 11th hour pullout that nearly bankrupted the producers . Joffe had the good idea to use Academy Award-nominated writer Mark Medoff and the result was an emotional bullseye with a sensitive tale of unfortunate and poor peasant workers in poor city of Calcutta ; however , it was not a major box-office hit . Colorful cinematography in strong visual sense by Peter Bizou . As Always , the maestro Ennio Morricone composes a marvelous and stirring musical score .

The motion picture was well directed by the British Roland Joffe . Although Warners was terrified of doing a film about lepers. They said, "Who cares about lepers?" I said it's not a film about lepers, it's a film about life and about any outsider - it could be AIDS, because the way people respond to lepers isn't that different from the way people with AIDS are treated . Roland is a good filmmaker mainly of epic subjects . After a long career filming for television , he made his movie debut in a big way with ¨The killing fields¨ winner of three Oscar and dealing with madness and atrocities committed by humans , Joffe's usual theme. ¨The mission¨, one of his greatest hits , had Palme d'or at Cannes , a graphic monument to Portuguese oppression in South-America , but Joffe has not quite held his place at the top level . He subsequently directed ¨Fat Man and Little Boy¨ referring to two atomic bombs dropped by America on Japan . Joffe's meagre output for the cinema makes it all the more surprising that he has turned out three splendid films and several others near-disasters such as ¨The scarlet letter¨, ¨Captivity¨, and ¨You and me¨. ¨Rating ¨City of Joy¨ : Better than average , worthwhile watching . The picture will appeal to Patrick Swayze fans .

Hazari Pal (Om Puri) and his family are homeless peasants forced to leave their village. They arrive in Calcutta and is con out of their savings almost immediately. American non-practicing doctor Max Lowe (Patrick Swayze) gets beaten by thugs and everything stolen. Hazari sleeping in the street nearby comes to his rescue. Max is taken to Joan Bethel (Pauline Collins) and her City of Joy. Hazari gets a rickshaw job from the Godfather whose son cruel Ashok Ghatak was the one that had his thugs beat up Max.

This is one of the old fashion White Savior movies. In fact, I would prefer the White Savior to be more standard. Max is a bit annoying. He says he wants enlightenment at the start but he acted more like a clueless ugly American. Om Puri again delivers like he always does. His character is terrific and balances out any deficiency in Max. Max needs the fire that is in his character but also the smarts and understanding of Joan. Also the story could be more compelling if it ended with the confrontation against Ghatak. The trial could have led directly to a climax. The movie goes on a little too long after that.

A young Texan surgeon (Swayze) can't cope with failure, when failure means the death of a child. He's not cut out for surgery so in his grief he embarks on a flight of escape, landing in the slums of Calcutta. His travel planning is on par with his medical skills. Once in the City of Joy, as the slum neighborhood is called, he quickly assumes the mantle of Great White Hope, not just saving lives by doctoring, but also in smashing caste barriers, and battling local mobsters. Many Asian reviewers condemn "City of Joy" as typical American racist moralizing. But, duh, this is a typical Hollywood B-movie, and it follows one of the standard B-movie formulas: The Hero Saves the Day. And as B-movies go, this is not all that bad if the preachy moralizing, and poor script don't throw you off. The acting is good, especially the Indian actors. And many of the scenes are shot on location (or at least an Indian sound stage). "City of Joy" doesn't work if you're looking for depth of story or acting, but it does work if all you're looking for is just a couple hours entertainment.

Patrick Swayze is lauded as delivering the best performance of his career in his role as a disillusioned doctor, Max Lowe, who "gets away from it all" in one of the large, over-populated cities of India. Here he "bumps" into Hasari Pal (played by Om Puri), who has brought his wife and three children to the city in search of a new life after creditors seized their farm. As Max tries to forget the past and Hasari works hard to build a future, they both discover that they can make a difference in the present.

The whole film is very well-done, and realistic to the point of making you feel for the lepers and all those unfortunate enough to live in the state of extreme poverty that permeates the overcrowded country of India. Om Puri is convincing and earnest as the father who only wants a better life for his family. Patrick Swayze is well-cast in his role, even if it does begin to appear that he has two expressions for all his movies; tired, and angry. I gave this 7 out of 10 for a great story and convincing acting in general, with marks deducted for Swayze's somewhat predictable characterization and his extremely annoying habit of using God's name in vain.

I think City of Joy is one of those films you either do or don't connect with. It's a study of growth, of friendship, of acceptance. It's a coming-of-age film. It's a study of how similar humans everywhere are in spite of vast cultural differences. It's a well-shot location piece. It's a character study. It's an action film, in its own way. Patrick Swayze and Om Puri put their hearts into their roles. The supporting cast is interesting and effective. The script has drama and emotional depth.

Although the plot certainly can't claim absolute originality, director Joffé's nuanced look at the cultural milieu and the care with which he portrays the characters' relationships and internal struggles make this a worthwhile, enjoyable film.

"Roadhouse" and "Dirty Dancing" were both lots of fun, but for me this is Patrick Swayze's best performance, and one of my favorite films of its kind.

Based on Dominique Lapierre's novel of the same name, "City of Joy" was directed by Roland Joffe, the man behind "The Mission" and "The Killing Fields" and maybe trying to emulate his previous masterpieces was the mistake that prevented the film to be one.

Don't get me wrong, I believe this is one of Patrick Swayze's most endearing roles but by trying to retell the old story of "fraternal love that transcends cultural barriers", Joffe made an enchanting fable that merely avoids the 'white saviour trope' but still deprives the film from that touch of authenticity guaranteed by the story of Hazari (Om Puri). Maybe I'm overthinking it and while Max Lowe (Swayze) learns just as much about himself from the contact with the local population of the 'City of Joy' -the name given to a slum in Calcultta- there's an invisible pedestal built out of his status as the main provider of medical services... alone with Joan, the Irishwoman, played by Pauline Collins, who came to India and never left. By the way, if one should credit screenwriter Mark Medoff for not turning Collins into a love interest, I wouldn't have minded if the second-in-charge was re-written as an Indian, to avoid the improbable implication that it would take an Occidental heart to care for the poor people of India.

But now that I've established what doesn't go right in the film, let's get to the good stuff, which is the story of Hazari, a brave father of three, married with the beautiful Kabna (Shabana Azmi), forced by circumstances to leave the farm he worked in and find a job in Calcultta. Puri plays the kind of father-figure whose decency and honor make up for his lack of resources, money and even shoes (as he walks bare feet all throughout the film). Hazari feels as a duty to provide for his family and earn enough money to afford the dowry in case his daughter would find a husband. He's not much traditional as he's practical, his arms are solid enough to handle the toughest jobs but even the broadest shoulders can't change traditions that perdured for centuries. And naturally, the responsibility he's assigned himself is proportional to his guilt after his family is thrown off a house after he had naively paid the monthly rent to the sneaky swindler.

But as if one strike of luck was hiding behind every misfortune (I'm sure there's an Indian proverb for that) he eventually becomes a rickshaw driver working for the local Godfather Ghatak (Shyamanand Jalan) whose son Ashok (Art Malik) harasses workers and act as a master of extortion in the neighborhood. To use an imagery that will content "The Godfather" fans, imagine trucks unions, replace them by the rickshaws, then have the local Hoffa as a Vito Corleone-figure and imagine his son, who strangely resembles Fredo Corleone but act more like Fanucci, and you'll get the picture.

It's in the "City of Joy" where Hazari crosses Max' path, after the American was also victim of a petty robbery orchestrated by Ashok and using a young prostitute named Poomina (Suneeta Sengupta) as a bait. It's a good start but then the plot derives again into contrivance. When we first see Max, he's just lost a child patient and decides to give up medicine and move to Calcultta to give a new start for his life. So far, so good. When he's attacked and then healed by Joan, the least we'd expect from him was to decline the offer to stay and help. If he didn't come for tourism but seeking a meaning to his life and if he's a man with the heart at the right place, why would he be so reluctant to give a try? The film pushes it a tad further when after helping a young leper woman to have a baby, he's still playing 'hard to get' with Joan who's forced to deliver the kind of pep-monologue that is too well-written not to make you grunt and think "oh, brother, how much time do we need till we get to the real stuff".

So the problem isn't much that the material is familiar but that Joffe treats it as if it was fresh, since it's a foregone conclusion that Max will adopt the people of the City as a new family, why not get to the point and then let the adversity come from outsiders. Swayze was a terrific actor and a great loss for cinema but Max was written in such a typical character-arc fashion that it made not only the story hackneyed but even the interactions between Max and the locals felt artificial. The whole sentimentalism might be well-intentioned but it doesn't always ring true.. Take another scene when Max and Joan visit Ghatak Sr. And his smooth talking doesn't fool him. Yes, the bribe was obvious, but did Max need to put such a tantrum? Even the old man was asking his bodyguards to stay calm. Even with good intentions, there's Max' quickness to react might trigger the impression of arrogant self-entitlement.

Now I have fond memories of "City of Joy", a film I saw more than twenty years ago with my Dad and my brother and I feel partially guilty to be so critical but then I remember the scenes that impacted me the most: I remember my horror when Ashok slashed Poomina's cheeks with his razor blade, or cheering when the rickshaw drivers paid Hazari's bail, I remembered many scenes and oddly enough, they could work without a white character, and the film could have been a new "Bicycle Thief".

"City of Joy" is still an inspirational feel-good film and the sight of two deceased actors walking side by side at the end is retrospectively poignant, I just wish Max was written as a more capable for listening person, who could learn as much as he taught.

"City of Joy" has a lot going for it: A great director ("The Killing Fields," "The Mission"), a great cast (Patrick Swayze, Om Puri) and outstanding locations/sets (Calcutta). It's a worthwhile film with a lot of good and it's clear that 2008's "Slumdog Millionaire" borrowed from it, but it's not a standout picture.

Why? Because great films take you into the world of the characters to the point that you forget you're watching a movie. While I think "City of Joy" works in some ways, it failed to do this for me. Too often I was conscious of the fact that I was watching actors in a movie.

Another problem is that the story jumped around without a good sense of flow. For instance, near the end with about 25 minutes left, the story jumps to the monsoon storms and the salvation of someone, which takes a few minutes; it then jumps right back into the main story. If you had gotten up to go to the kitchen you'd have missed it. Bad flow.

Regardless, this is a film that can have a positive effect on your life. Suddenly, your life doesn't seem too bad and you find yourself exceedingly grateful for your lot in life. I literally wept through parts of the first half, which is a sign of an effective film, even if it's a mixed bag.

This one needed more time & effort to develop, but sometimes filmmakers pull the plug prematurely to just "get the job done," and it shows.

The film runs 2 hours, 12 minutes.

GRADE: C.

Bizarre reviews of this film that fail to explain why they are against its excellence don't stand up in the face of critics like Jim Whalley of Cinema Showcase who called it "the best picture of the year" and Susan Granger of WICC who commented that Patrick Swayze gave "the performance of a lifetime". This is the true story of a disillusioned American doctor who, like so many people, (the Beatles and Alanis Morisette, for example) travelled to India to find himself in a search for enlightenment. At first, he is unwilling to help the locals stand up against the oppressive 'godfather' of the area because he feels that all he'd be doing is trying to "drill a hole in water".

Having been to an English-speaking Third World country like India, myself, I found the reactions of the Swayze character extremely true to life. This seems to be the point that many viewers of the film don't seem to understand. I witnessed many Anglo-Americans in a Third World country surprising themselves by blowing up in anger at seeing the locals cowering away from injustice and later being transformed by the love and patience of the poor. I watched this movie while I was in Guyana and it was like an echo of many of the things I was going through and many of the events with which I had faced. Even the characters and their characteristics and reactions in the film matched many of the people I knew in that land!

"City of Joy" was an excellent and faithful adaption of Dominique Lapierre's richly written masterpiece. Om Puri's performance was deserving of an Academy Award. Patrick Swayze's character - his reactions to his surroundings - was extremely realistic. The conclusion of the film was beautifully touching. The strengths of American culture and Indian culture joined together - both races learned to accept one another's ways of life and borrowed virtues from one another's culture to breathe new life into the slums of Calcutta. "City of Joy" is one of the best movies ever made (10 out of 10).

This is one of my all time favorite movies. So why the relatively low rating? It is because Patrick Swayze (RIP) utters a vicious blasphemy which is obviously prescribed by the evil Hollywood crowd. We know this because it happens so often that there is just one such event in so many movies.

The story itself follows several characters in a Calcutta poverty district. The storyline, acting, visuals and setting are all top notch. I enjoy underdog stories and this one is both realistic and provides satisfying resolutions. There is some foul language throughout but aside from the blasphemy, should not deter mature audiences from enjoying a wonderful flick.

The Western society has been fed ideas about India being a poor country. Movies like these only make those beliefs stronger. Such illustrations make it all the more difficult for Indians to be accepted abroad. Agreed there are poor and homeless in India, but why is there no representation of educated people if not the successful ones.

I totally hated the idea of the movie portraying Patrick Swayze as another Mother Teressa. In my opinion this movie has shown India in a very bad light giving wrong notions. It is unjust to discuss only one aspect of the society. Exactly the reason why people ask me, "When we go to India, can we hire an elephant right outside the airport so we do not have to walk on the roads so full of filth and snakes?"

Those who want a second opinion on contemporary Indian society should watch "Monsoon Wedding".

To truly appreciate the characters of City of Joy, you have to read the book by the same name by Dominique Lapierre. Compared to its source material, the movie is a fairy tale. The hardships that the leading characters go through in the novel are gut wrenching and on more than one occasion almost made me cry. It was nice to see Patrick Swayze take his role head on and I think he did a marvelous job. Om Puri is one of the finest actors of Indian Cinema. If you like his work, I highly recommend "ArthSatya" (Half Truth) and "Paar" - the movies that established him as an intense actor. Also "Freedom At Midnight" by Dominique Lapierre is a great read, especially if you are interested in history. Again - it is not for anyone with a weak stomach.

An American doctor, who needs instruction in how to cowboy up, runs sniveling to India to re-invent himself. While there he runs into a bleeding heart woman who is intent on saving a bunch of worthless bums and good for nothings. The good doctor refuses to help this poor soul save to downtrodden of the world because he is too wrapped up in his own self pitying little world. However, he makes a rousing, heart warming reversal when he surges to the rescue of the little woman and her hinky dinky little "hospice". Too mushy, and besides it's been done before.

Aside from its very human story set in the slums of Mumbai, the cultural and human setting of the movie makes i very attractive.

I greatly enjoyed watching this movie, even though everyone spoke English and the attitude of the main character was quite nauseating (though in the beginning this is great, and an excellent part of the script). It was good to see Calcutta again, as well as the rain, and there are many touching moments in this movie.

A movie that will carry you to a new place & a new culture you will carry your tears, anger & hope along till the end watching it. The smell of the Indian dust, The pain of the people, The discrepancy between even the poor, A story about a man running to provide the food for his family beside saving money to marry his daughter. A lot of high temper feelings & emotions, you cant stop your eyes from falling. beside talking about the unjust of human beens in isolating a group of innocent people who their fault is that they are not born in complete bodies, the white man in the story who is a doctor failed in the medicine job in his country and ran to India where he found his real soul also show us how we sometimes see the world from one view while it can be seen from a better view, I don't understand why it wasn't dominated for an Oscar. excuse my English & thanks for reading my view.

... it's a Hollywood film, presented for Western audiences. In that context, I found the movie to be very good, entertaining and uplifting. In my opinion, it was as good as or better than other Western films with similar subject matter. Although not without flaws, it never lost my attention and was an enjoyable diversion, as movies should be. 7/10

Having been born and brought up in 'the City of Joy' and living in the western world for the last 5 years, I have mixed feelings about this movie. The locales (VERY much of Calcutta- the by-lanes, the rickshaws, tea stalls, colleges, streets- all of them) give it a sense of realism, but I'd have to say that the movie does get too preachy. The hero does save the day in the end, but well, this is not the Calcutta one relates to. It is the centre for art, culture, music, drama, books, literature- and the now-made-famous-by-Late Mother Teresa's work, the outskirts of Calcutta. Cinematically, the movie does get dragging at times and one starts questioning the motive of the director Roland Joffe (sympathy or point blank nakedness? Trying to make people aware of hit them at weak points to arouse interest?) but it is a passable "entertainer", strictly due to the wonderful work by the Indian cast, especially the great Om Puri as Hazari. Could have been a great one if it followed the book a little closer.

City of Joy is the story of an American Doctor (Patrick Swayze) who runs away from his life and unwittingly lands himself in an entirely different place. Through various actions he ends up helping a woman (Pauline Collins) who tries to help the very poor of Calcutta on a day-to-day basis. City of Joy also contains a story of a farmer (Om Puri) who has lost his farm to the "money lenders" and brings his family to Calcutta to find work so that he can support his family. How all these lives interact is interesting. The poverty and oppression is devastating to see - but worth watching. The story touches your heart and holds your interest throughout the movie.

Patrick Swayze is wonderful in this movie! He is expansive and portrays all of his emotions - anger, frustration, love of friends and joy poignantly! Dirty Dancing, Ghost and City of Joy should have mad Patrick Swayze a serious leading man in the category of Harrison Ford. In later movies you can see his emotions but it is as if the are locked inside his handsome clenched jaws. Nevertheless, Patrick Swayze is a handsome accomplished actor and this film is well worth the watch!

Even though the story is not that sophisticated with probably too many clichés about the good and the bad, it provides a nice suspense with the pleasure to see Patrick Swayze and Om Puri as the main characters.

A film exploring poverty in India. A bit of a 'white saviour' narrative going on with the Hollywood stars saving the day but I did like Swayze in this one, finding his performance quite touching. The rest is reasonable enough.