I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

People are voting emotionally.

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The Chiefs 2pac and Bily where bad men and this film just seems like propaganda for their cause. God knows how many kids are watching this and thinking its the right thing to go out and arm yourself to the teeth with M-14s and machete's. Bily is the lesser of the two evils though and does come across to be trying to do some good. The "aid worker" needs her head checked and is lucky shes still alive especially after being brazen enough to tell Bily to his face that she's humping his brother. It seems like shes forgot she's hanging out with the leaders of this violent gang and that the two brothers are borderline at war with each other already. Her sleeping around could've seen a lot of people killed... Wyclef also seems too happy to be backing these gangsters up which just shows ignorance. Why should these guys get to tell their story when they have probably overseen the murders of many people who never will get the chance to tell their sad tales. Does Wyclef see that or even care? I was going to give it 1 but it actually tells some of the grim story so I settled on 3.

Watching this movie I felt immensely curious on several accounts but found to my disappointment, that the film-makes apparently didn't share this curiosity or had decided for some unknown reasons not to try and give any answers. This film is made in a very uninvolved way. By this i mean that the protagonist is not asked a single question during the whole film (so it seems) and therefore it is entirely up to their own insight and level of reflection what we are told about life as they experience it. We understand that 2pac and Bily live under an immense pressure and that "death" plays a very big part in their lives.But we don't know much about their connection to Aristide (we are told at a certain point that they protect him) and what their assignment really is and if there were any moral dilemmas accordingly. We sort of follow them around in their car with their guns and hip hop music on the stereo talking to people hanging around in the slum of cite de soleil.The movie is told in a fast and confusing pace and this gave me a feeling of being left out. 2pac surely has a charming personality but it was still very difficult to empathize with him or any other character that was portrayed./Simon

The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with having a certain point of view when shooting a documentary...I recognize the right of the director to have his/her own perception on the the events that pass before his/her camera or all the reasons...The same way, the viewer can judge a documentary, as an artistic expression of reality, as a comment on events/people or just as "history on film"."Ghosts of Cité Soleil" is a perfect example for all the above. Thats why you can either love or hate it. I am sure no-one will see this and just be "ok" about it. And not because of the reality (?) it presents, but cause of the point of view, and on top of it, the characters in it.Its a piece of art no doubt, but it seemed like a mockumentary with real blood and real pain, cause the main characters are used as marionettes. And yes, those people are puppets the way they are used by the authorities of all kinds, but I would prefer if the director tried to record that, to just showing us a PLAY of his own.Its almost a shame.

I saw this tonight (8/17/07)at Facets in Chicago and was handed propaganda by American people who are apparently jumping on another cause that blames America for everything. This film did not appear to have an agenda at all to me. I actually was wishing it had a little more of one because I kept getting confused about who was good and who was bad. There is a reason I was confused, because they didn't portray anyone as completely good or bad. The place seems a mess.The people handing me the papers definitely had an agenda just like some of the reviewers on here. In fact one of the papers I got has word for word the same thing as one of the reviewers. People yell out racist and compare the director to Leni Riffenstahl and we are supposed to think it's the film is biased??? The propaganda against the film is what seems to be blatantly biased. It is unquestionably pro Aristide.I don't understand how anyone can call this film racist. That seems to be a typical ploy to get people emotional and disregard any facts. I didn't see any of the Hatian people as evil thugs, I saw them as victims and survivors used and manipulated by corrupt governments.This film maker did not appear to be for deposing Aristide at all. I got the impression that both leaders were corrupt which is most likely the case. It definitely looked like the new government had the brothers killed unjustly. The brothers were not shown as completely good or bad either. We see their deplorable living conditions and their bones prominent on their scrawny bodies as they showered and know that they are desperate.I think this film maker did an excellent job because no one came out blameless. Some reviewers on here want you to believe that Aristide was blameless and that the gangsters were made up, despite actual footage of gangsters attacking demonstrators. Even if Aristide didn't order it, he should have at least gone after the gangs.