Slumdog Millionaire
- Thread starter Deckerd
- Start date
I saw it last Sunday with my wife. I wasn't sure going in if I was going to like it or not. We LOVED it. Danny Boyle has one hell of an eclectic body of work, from "Trainspotting" to "28 Days Later" to "Sunshine" to this (among others). It's a very energetic film.
Enjoy it, I think you may. It was one of my favorites this year. Come back and report. I'm always interested to hear people's thoughts on this film.
Great movie. The day after I saw it I bought the soundtrack as well, which has been playing pretty much nonstop on my iPod.
I absolutely loved this film. I wasn't expecting it to be half as exciting and engaging as it was. To be truthful, the plot sounded a little silly. However I was constantly focused on the screen and there was never a dull moment. I've heard criticism of the ending being happy, which I find silly. I felt great after watching the movie. It's so uplifting.
My gf and I really enjoyed this film. It has a lot of heart, humor, drama and amazing scenery. Definitely worth watching.
Totally my kind of film, this one.
Well paced, well directed, extremely well acted considering a lot of the film used children, it had everything you go to the cinema for. The story was universal and could have been told anywhere, but India was the perfect setting for this variety of the story. Judging from the comments when we were going out, I don't think anyone there didn't enjoy it. To quote a board friend, "It makes no real social or cultural comment about India as a country, doesn't preach and just lets the story unfold and treats the viewer with a bit of intelligence and you can't really ask for more than that." I can't put it any better than that.
I should say, for anyone who has seen it: we didn't get what the brother was trying to do at the end.
Well paced, well directed, extremely well acted considering a lot of the film used children, it had everything you go to the cinema for. The story was universal and could have been told anywhere, but India was the perfect setting for this variety of the story. Judging from the comments when we were going out, I don't think anyone there didn't enjoy it. To quote a board friend, "It makes no real social or cultural comment about India as a country, doesn't preach and just lets the story unfold and treats the viewer with a bit of intelligence and you can't really ask for more than that." I can't put it any better than that.
I should say, for anyone who has seen it: we didn't get what the brother was trying to do at the end.
It's a really good movie, very much an urban fairy tale, happy ending and all. I know it's probably the favourite for the Oscars after it's Golden Globe win but my vote still goes with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button which is far and away the best movie I've seen in ages. Slumdog fully deserves a nomination for Best Picture though.
Slumdog just got a bunch of Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Director. I'm looking forward to seeing it!
So I see - well pleased to see said film getting a nomination for Best Adapted screenplay, as I used to know the guy (Simon Beaufoy) who wrote it! (went to school with him for a couple of years in the mid 1980s in fact). Always thought he'd do well out of life, although perhaps not quite this well 
GM
GM
While I didn't get the whole "bathtub full of money" thing, I think he was essentially buying time for the girl to get away, and his killing the gangster knowing full well that the would be killed as well was his redemption of sorts for the bad things he had done.
Heaven Forbid there would be a happy ending to a film. Are we all living in the BSG universe all of a sudden? Sure seems like it sometimes.
I went to see this movie yesterday and loved it. Everything from the acting, cinematography, directing, and the music was great and I felt really good after leaving the theater. I think the only thing I didn't like was young Jemal running through the slums of Mumbi in Human excrement though, and I'm really glad I wasn't eating anything at the time.
Yeah I know. When did the happy ending become bad. It seems that people want to sacrifice good storytelling for the sake of "edgyness" I've heard people say Wall-E shouldn't have had a happy ending. Wall-E for pity's sake. What's wrong with not leaving a movie depressed?
The film was uplifting, entertaining, and fun, but a serious Best Picture contender? Dana Steven's complaint that the film aestheticizes poverty is not unfounded. Based on the gorgeous cinematography--there's no other way to describe the vibrant, Bollywood-inspired cinematography--one could easily forget that these characters are in destitute situations.
I'm partially annoyed, too, that all of the white guys behind the film are being lavished with awards and nominations, but the Indian cast and crew have been largely ignored.
As I said in another thread, the film is worth seeing, but worth lavishing with so much praise? That the game show questions are asked in an order that perfectly facilitates chronological flashbacks in the life of Jamal is of course silly. And the fact that his evil brother finds redemption, and Jamal manages to secure the money and the girl, is too soft, light, and pat for my tastes. I don't want to rain on anybody's parade--it's a fun movie--but it doesn't have any depth. Let it win the awards it deserves (cinematography, music) and let another film more deserving round out the other categories.
I'm partially annoyed, too, that all of the white guys behind the film are being lavished with awards and nominations, but the Indian cast and crew have been largely ignored.
As I said in another thread, the film is worth seeing, but worth lavishing with so much praise? That the game show questions are asked in an order that perfectly facilitates chronological flashbacks in the life of Jamal is of course silly. And the fact that his evil brother finds redemption, and Jamal manages to secure the money and the girl, is too soft, light, and pat for my tastes. I don't want to rain on anybody's parade--it's a fun movie--but it doesn't have any depth. Let it win the awards it deserves (cinematography, music) and let another film more deserving round out the other categories.
^That's all well and good, and you're certainly entitled to feel that way. Personally, I just want to feel really good sometimes when I watch a movie. I want everything to work out and everyone to find happiness. I can also enjoy a sad ending, but only if it's the natural ending of the story. A sad ending for the sake of a sad ending is just depressing.
I'm not solely knocking the ending. It wouldn't make sense for a downbeat ending, given the rest of the film. It all works as a whole--and it's worth watching. It just doesn't have the depth I'd prefer in a Best Picture nominee. Not that the Academy is particularly good at picking out movies with depth.
I don't know that I agree with that. During the scene where the boys were running through the slums for quite some time, and the camera pulls back to show the sheer size and scale of the shanty town; my reaction was of mild shock. It showed just how much humanity was piled on top of each other in very poor conditions. The film also touched on a subject that is rarely touched on, the mutilation and self mutilation of beggars to better fill the coffers. Ugly, but very real, stuff. None of that struck me as "anesthetized".
With a brief spin around Google one can easily find the reaction of actual Indians who have seen the film. And there is some very legitimate criticism of the film. But over all, they seem to be divided into those who are horrified at the emphasis on the poverty ("poverty porn" it was called by one) and those who are happy to see the varnish removed. In these criticisms too, "anesthetize" is a word I've yet to see. This LA Times article, for example is fairly typical.
One kid I know here at school whose from India mentioned he didn't like the film because it propagates racial stereotypes of Indians. I'm no expert on the subject, so I can't say.
And the word I was using was "aestheticized" not "anesthetized." I first encountered the criticism here at Slate, by Dana Stevens. Further commentary on the film and the charge (amongst others) at Slate can be found here, by Dennis Lim. I don't want to sound like I'm proselytizing too much for the website, but it's a good source.
To excerpt the article's conclusion:
Moreover, I think the charge that the film wouldn't have any momentum if it was directed by an Indian filmmaker rather than a British one is spot on--has there ever been an Indian film that has had legs, critically or commercially, in the United States? Lastly, it's worth noting that the film hasn't been commercially successful in India. For whatever reason, Indian audiences aren't embracing the film like audiences in the west.
And the word I was using was "aestheticized" not "anesthetized." I first encountered the criticism here at Slate, by Dana Stevens. Further commentary on the film and the charge (amongst others) at Slate can be found here, by Dennis Lim. I don't want to sound like I'm proselytizing too much for the website, but it's a good source.
To excerpt the article's conclusion:
Moreover, I think the charge that the film wouldn't have any momentum if it was directed by an Indian filmmaker rather than a British one is spot on--has there ever been an Indian film that has had legs, critically or commercially, in the United States? Lastly, it's worth noting that the film hasn't been commercially successful in India. For whatever reason, Indian audiences aren't embracing the film like audiences in the west.
Ah geeze. Life usually has unhappy endings, and since art often strives to imitate life, happy endings are usually seen as silly and contrived.
Similar threads
