Kim Voynar's Cinematical review:

I'm looking forward to this. Variety review is up, and its a good one:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117938135...yid=31&cs=1

Let me guess. Some people in the Calcutta slums find a suitcase of money...

Really wish I was going to Toronto this week...

Look out! Joe Morgenstern reports from Telluride:

"Slumdog Millionaire" will open commercially later this fall, so I'll confine myself to only a few effusions now, with more to come. There's never been anything like this densely detailed phantasmagoria -- groundbreaking in substance, damned near earth-shaking in style. Mr. Boyle and his colleagues, including his Indian co-director, Loveleen Tandan, have pulled off a soaring, crowd-pleasing fantasy that's a tale of unswerving love, a searing depiction of poverty and injustice and a marvelous evocation of multinational media madness. When I spoke to the director after the first screening here -- actually the first public screening anywhere -- I said his film was a great example of what the late Carol Reed once advised: Find the right container, and you can fill it with whatever you wish. "Yes," Danny Boyle replied, "and I also try to follow David Lean's advice to declare your ambitions in the first five minutes." The ambitions declared at the beginning of "Slumdog Millionaire" are huge. By the end they're completely fulfilled.

I CAN'T WAIT.

Twitch's review from Toronto:

Slumdog Millionaire has been given an "R" rating by the MPAA, and some folks are pretty upset.

Fan Rant: An R Rating for 'Slumdog Millionaire'?! Give Me a Break!:


Slumdog Millionaire Gets Screwed By The MPAA:

Just noticing Opus' latest post now. Huh. Could the rating be attributed exclusively to smoking? Isn't that now an automatic "R"?

I saw the film last night and would caution against getting too worked up over it. It's visually invigorating -- I like the sequences set in the slum -- but I couldn't shake the feeling, as the film drew to its somewhat predictable conclusion, that the inventiveness and promise in the early going hadn't been entirely fulfilled. I can't say I didn't enjoy the film, I just didn't find it to be a groundbreaking work of storytelling, and that left me slightly disappointed.

Just now I looked at RT, where the movie stands at 100% "fresh." Looking at a few of the reviews, I see this one from Peter Brunette pretty much captures my current thinking on the film:

Bottom Line: A high-octane hybrid of Danny Boyle's patented cinematic overkill and Bollywood's ultra-energetic genre conventions that is a little less good than the hype would have it.

Christian wrote:
: Could the rating be attributed exclusively to smoking? Isn't that now an automatic "R"?

Ha, no.

How many four-letter words does it have? Specifically, how many f-words? If it has more than, like, two, that's always an automatic R (though I think exceptions were made for one or two Iraq War documentaries).

I like the film, but don't love it. Something about the complicated structure, combined with the we've-seen-it-all-before depiction of slum life and gang life, is kind of distancing or off-putting, at least to me. I wonder if the film might work better on second viewing, though, since it takes a while before you find out what's "really" going on.

Interesting to see Irrfan Khan playing yet another sympathetic cop who happens to torture people, or should I say a cop who tortures people yet happens to be sympathetic. (The last time we saw him do this was in A Mighty Heart, I believe.)

Ron Reed wrote:
: Let me guess. Some people in the Calcutta slums find a suitcase of money...

Suitcase, no. Bathtub, yes. And the entire movie is structured around flashbacks to the game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (and the opening titles tell us that the main character has already answered every question correctly, with just one question left to go...).

Oh, and remember that toilet-diving incident in Trainspotting? There is something, uh, similar here.

This film is now being mentioned as front-runner for Best Picture, yet we haven't had a new post in this thread for nearly two weeks. The film is still in limited release, so I suspect many A&Fers haven't had a chance to catch up with it.

I was reminded about the film when I saw that the Weekly Standard site had finally posted John Podhoretz's rave. I don't quite share the love, but that's OK -- some people really, really dig this movie:

Slumdog Millionaire makes the case that what we need now is a little more Dickens and a little less Wilde. It is one of the best movies I have ever seen.

Last time I remember Podhoretz saying "best ever" he was talking about ... Cinderella Man. I thought, at the time, I might be in agreement with him in terms of it being one of the year's best, if not one of the best movies EVER, but then I never watched that movie a second time. So I was just as susceptible back then to Ron Howard's film, if not now to Boyle's charming but far from life-changing Millionaire.

Yes, this certainly Dickensian. Jamal is oppressed in so many ways through the years, but has a virtue of soul that almost demands that success will find him.

Nice examination of what is destiny.

I really liked the Bollywood closing credits.

In an interview Boyle gave this reason for the R rating: "They said it was because of the intensity. There's nothing we can do about it. "

A commenter at Jeffrey Wells's blog:

When I say 'trendy' I mean Slumdog Millionaire is warmed-over Dickens with a multi-culti sheen, and critics (who are indeed gushing -- 85 on Metacritic, with lots of 100 scores) feel good about praising something that takes World Cinema and throws it into a blender. Imagine the same story with a trailer-trash white kid in a setting of domestic rural poverty and meth labs -- same reviews?

Not EXACTLY the "same story" but "trailer-trash white kid in a setting of domestic rural poverty and [abuse]" = Sling Blade at 84 on Metacritic. Wells's commenter is extremely cynical.

ETA: My nearest indie theater's website now says this film will open here Dec. 19--nearly a month from now.

Quite a heated debate developing at Jeffrey Wells' blog. The critics are really divided over whether this is Best Picture material, or just a pile of flashy cliches, or both.

I watched Slumdog again a couple of nights ago and felt the same way toward it: liked it, but it didn't get measurably better or worse the second time. Then, last night, I watched The Wrestler again, after having read Richard Corliss' comments about how cliched that film is, and I also liked that film just as much the second time. I'm not sure it got better, but it didn't get any worse, and since I liked The Wrestler much more than Slumdog Millionaire, I'll be pulling for it, and for Rourke.

Wells says the over-50 Academy members don't like the film, and I can sort of understand that. But I'm not them, so I'll continue to hope.

Here's Corliss:
My own anticipation sank with the opening credits: "Mickey Rourke, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood." That list spelled out the plot: damaged veteran, middle-age girlfriend, young daughter. The Wrestler never rose above fight-movie bromides, never disspelled my gloom. The character stereotyping makes Sylvester Stallone's Rocky Balboa, by comparison, seem as swathed in moral twlight as Luchino Visconti's Rocco and His Brothers. The movie's serioso sentimentality is doubly strange since the script is by Robert Siegel, an ex-staffer of The Onion and co-writer of The Onion Movie. His old job was puncturing cliches; here he recycles them.

The old cliches work very well here. I recognize them, but don't care. I bought into every second of the film.

It's the Best Film of 2008, according to the National Board of Review.

Hmm. Guess I'd better see it.

But then again... didn't the NBR celebrate The Bucket List last year?

Now that this film seems to be a serious frontrunner for all the various awards this year, I got curious about where it might stand next to Boyle's other films in terms of box-office prospects (awards buzz being a good audience magnet, etc.). Thus:

• 2008 -- Slumdog Millionaire -- $5.3 million so far (it opened in 10 theatres three weeks ago)
• 2007 -- Sunshine -- $3.7 + 28.3 = 32 million
• 2005 -- Millions -- $6.6 + 5.2 = 11.8 million
• 2003 -- 28 Days Later -- $45.1 + 37.7 = 82.7 million
• 2000 -- The Beach -- $39.8 + 104.3 = 144.1 million
• 1997 -- A Life Less Ordinary -- $4.4 million
• 1996 -- Trainspotting -- $16.5 million
• 1995 -- Shallow Grave -- $2.9 + 17.6 = 20.5 million

The figures reflect the North American gross + the overseas gross = the worldwide gross. I couldn't find the overseas figures for Trainspotting or A Life Less Ordinary, either at BOM or the IMDb, and I'm not even sure if Slumdog Millionaire has been released overseas yet.

At any rate, in terms of North American grosses, Slumdog Millionaire is already ahead of three films (Shallow Grave, A Life Less Ordinary, Sunshine), is on the verge of passing another (Millions), and is still well behind three others (Trainspotting, The Beach, 28 Days Later).

If I had to guess, I would say a steady stream of awards-season buzz could help this film beat all the others in North America -- but it might not surpass The Beach overseas.

Oh, and last year's NBR pick was No Country for Old Men -- which did win the Oscar in the end. (Though I gather only a minority of NBR winners have gone on to win the Oscar, in general.)

Oh, and as a further reference point, the lowest-grossing Best Picture Oscar winner of the past 20 years is Crash (2005, $53.4 million) -- and that film had left theatres long, long before the awards season, so it couldn't capitalize on the buzz.

I like it. Yes, Dickens came to mind, with a particularly nasty Fagan character.

Parts of it I loved, though by the end it was more in the "liked" category - I think it's when the story really zeroes in on "this is a love story" that it flattens out a bit for me, though I am very drawn to the single-minded purity and heroism of the young man's love - overtones of chivalry, maybe even - and found the female lead utterly beguiling. I also felt myself drop down a couple of levels of enrapturement when I realized how schematic the structure looked like it was going to be, moving back and forth from "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" question/answer to episode in central character's life that explains how he happened to know that answer. It was something of a relief to see the filmmakers switch that up and play with it after a while.

Particularly drawn, though, to the spiritual elements of the film: the question of destiny(?) in "It is written," which I take to be essentially Muslim but certainly resonates with my Christian sense of providence. Quite specifically, the idea of "abandonment to divine providence." I'm fascinated by the young man's combination of passionate single-minded self-sacrificing pursuit of his goal, right alongside some sense of trust / faith / non-attachment to control and results.

And I found the brother an exceptionally complex, unpredictable and well-rounded character. Especially fascinating to see the contrast in the two brothers: pure, single-minded idealistic drive toward a compassionate goal contrasted with ever-shifting personality, allegiances, moral choices of survival-oriented brother. And substantial spiritual stuff going on in him as well.

I'll admit I became distracted wondering what on earth happened in Danny Boyle's life to give him this preoccupation with suitcases (whether literal or figurative) full of money. Like, did some neighbour kid's family win the lotto or something?

Quick question for those who have seen it...

How strong is the violence in the film? And how dominant is the violence in the film? How about a scale of 1 to 10?

I would love to convince my wife (yet unconvinced) that this should be the film to catch on her upcoming birthday, due to the ecstatic raves, the uplift ending, and the romantic element. But according to screenit.com, the film has moments of violence, which partially attribute its R rating. And it's not that my wife would automatically tune out for the violent aspects, but we just want to know what we've signed on for after we pluck down our twenty bucks.

Thx...
Nick

There are a couple of early-on scenes of rubber-hose/third-degree police brutality early on; my memory tells me there's two shooting scenes later (drug gangs get involved a couple of ways); and the already-famous outhouse scene.

None of it are particularly gory or fetishised, by contemporary standards. Unless your wife is especially squeamish (and your note suggests not), there shouldn't be a problem. Or to put it another way, this is a "soft" R-rating, so if an R-rating will ever not be a problem, it'll be a movie like this.

After all ... it's SO uplifting ... (vjm goes off to mutter to self about losing touch with the world).


Victor

Movie opened here a week earlier than originally announced. I liked it very much and recommend this first-posted assessment.

FWIW, I think it's amusing/interesting how some people (e.g. Ron, if I'm not mistaken) have said the film takes a dip in quality towards the end (becomes a little "flat", etc.) while others (e.g. me) tend to think the film gets better towards the end (in my case, because it finally begins to "come together"). It seems many people agree that there is a change in tone, or mood, or quality, or something about two-thirds of the way through, but opinions vary on whether the movie gets better or worse as a result.

Ooooops ... I forgot some other details ...

There is a scene of a religiously-based riot, Hindus on the hunt for Muslims. And a sequence involving a child being maimed and others then being threatened with it.

I REALLY hope you haven't gone yet, Nick.

I really, truly don't have an acute Sensit-O-Meter for movie violence. To be honest, I find myself mostly tuning it out because I know it's just fake (especially in SLUMDOG, which also schizophrenically wants to be a fairy tale) and too often a poor substitute for (dramatic) action.

vjmorton wrote:
: There is a scene of a religiously-based riot, Hindus on the hunt for Muslims.

Just wondering, what do you make of this? God knows there have been Hindu riots (against Christians, Muslims and perhaps others) over the last decade or two, but I saw the film (which takes place in Mumbai) shortly before the Mumbai attacks, which of course were perpetrated by Muslims, and I found myself wondering if we will ever see a film in which, say, a couple of Hindu orphans barely survive a Muslim riot.

Not sure that violence is "schizophrenic" in a fairy tale. The original Grimms' tales are filled with chopped off body parts, eyes gouged out, characters burned alive, parents murdering their children, or sending them off into the woods alone, etc. Nothing necessarily pretty about a fairy tale. The important thing in a fairy tale is that eventually, somehow, someone good or innocent must triumph over the wicked or guilty.

Not political correctness or dhimmitude, if that's what you're getting at. And I certainly have no difficulty saying that almost all terrorists today in the world are Muslims (primarily because it has often worked in the last few decades).

But terrorism and pogroms are fundamentally different phenomena. Terrorism, a stealth act designed to create panic and undermine central authority, is almost by definition an act of the weak or the minority (I use those nouns strictly sociologically -- I have nothing but contempt for The Fallacy of The Superior Virtue of The Oppressed). But the overtness and sweep of a serious pogrom can only be the act of the strong or the majority (ditto, in reverse). So in the Indian context, inter-religious conflict in recent years, exemplified most recently in the Gujarat fighting, has mostly been a Muslim (or Sikh) terrorist act leading to broad (and bloodier) Hindu retaliation.





I know about the Grimms content. But in my Toronto capsule for KISSES (2nd one down), I made some points comparing that vile film with KIT KITTREDGE, that if a film wants to be a fairy tale, it automatically becomes limited in the subject matter it can present to us in a realistic way while maintaining an appropriate tone, and that applies to SLUMDOG too, though I didn't hate that film like I do KISSES.

There's simply a fundamental difference between literature and film, between words and images, in this regard. Film makes things literal and "real" and appeals to our viscera, direct and unmediated, particularly if shown realistically rather than in a stylized way (pure fairy tales still exist on film like Demy's DONKEY SKIN or THE PRINCESS BRIDE). But SLUMDOG has numerous scenes and images that are plainly and obviously intended to evoke visceral responses (and to bring about associations with real-life suffering, a related but separate issue) to a degree that no words can. Writing "Hansel and Gretel pushed the witch into the oven" is not the same as showing an actual person being burned alive (even if faked).


Victor

I think I'm more enthusiastic about this film than anyone here, at least so far. I'm totally on board with what Peter Travers says-- I don't just admire this film, I really and truly love it, on a very visceral level at which no film has hit me in a couple of years. Which is not to say that it's the best movie I've seen in a couple of years, or even the best I've seen this year-- but, for its exuberance, its sweet spirit, its colorful creativity, and its unabashedly ravishing romance, it's already won a very special place in my heart.

Just saw this on my day off from work. Maryellen wanted to hear my opinion of it, and if she trusted me, she would then go see it on DVD.

I was reminded by _The Constant Gardener_ while watching this film. Both films do a great job in describing the history a nation's poverty, in the context of a story with only five major characters (three, if you don't include the "Regis Philbin" and the interrogator).

But whereas _Gardener_ was ultimately forgettable, this film just radiates energy from every single frame. The colors, the angles, the editing--for once a director's fiercest impulses do not detract from the story, but enhance it.

However, and it pains me to say this--I truly dislike the marketers playing up the romantic angle, considering everything that happens to the two leads in the film. It's _Sleepless in Seattle_, except played with a whirlwind of a decade-and-a-half of third-world economic turmoil, con artists, reality TV and...um... nightmarish scenes of torture. A child's worst nightmare. And that outhouse episode.

I'm really happy to have seen it, and I think it has the chops to actually make it to the end of the Oscar Derby (or at least get nominated), but it is not mainstream entertainment, and it will not connect with most audiences. It is Danny Boyle's best outing as director, bar none, and the screenplay is a work of genius. But it's got a long road to haul before it breaks thru to a larger contingent.

I don't know where Nick lives, but in my obscure corner of the world, this movie is playing both at the local indie theater which I suspect stays afloat largely by regularly running Bollywood flicks, AND at one of the major 20-screen first-run mainstream theaters a few miles away.

and vj morton wrote:


I think children have very vivid imaginations even when stories are read to them. As for "pure" fairy tales, you may want to re-view Donkey Skin. The creepy incest element in the film comes straight from the original source. Lyn Gardner's review of current London stage versions of fairy tales notes:



NEVERTHELESS, Slumdog Millionaire is not a movie for children; is anyone saying that it is?--it's rated "R"--controversial though that rating may be, at least it should be a big flashing sign to anyone who cares: "Don't take your babies to this film!"

As a fairy tale for adults, however, I think it's quite effective.

Just for clarity's sake, I live in Sourthern, suburban Connecticut, about an hour and a half away from New York City. I saw it, too, in a commercial multiplex. But just because it lucks out into a minor distribution into a multiplex or two doesn't mean it's broken thru. It may mean that the distributors were able to capitalize on the Danny Boyle "brand" (the profitable "28 Weeks Later", among many other films in the last dozen years). That, and the glowing reviews, is all it had to go on.

I keep telling people about Slumdog, and I feel everybody else respond with the same old "Never heard of it." But... it's won all these critics groups awards!! "Who's In It?" And on it goes.

It would be a mark of maturity if the general public were to disdain sequels and remakes, and instead aim for positive but challenging, original ideas. But I sense that many of these people would be infuriated by some of the sequences in the first ten minutes (like the episode with a car battery). One couple walked out during that scene... had they stuck it thru one more minute, they would have been thrust into the childhood parts...

Peter Suderman:

Slumdog Millionaire is the most overrated movie of the year.

[ snip ]

Mostly, it seems as if Boyle is a sucker for a pretty girl, and expects us to be too. Jamal's pursuit of Prem never makes much sense, and his self-proclaimed love for her is based on nothing other than the fact that he's desperate, and she's pretty to look at. Still, maybe that tells us something: Unsatisfying as that logic may be, it might just explain a lot about why so many critics have fallen so hard for Slumdog Millionaire.

Interestingly, my favorite local critic said in his own review that the leading lady was "far prettier than the role requires".

Thinking about it overnight, there is one thing really special that Danny Boyle did in this film that I don't think I've ever seen before in a film. Perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps examples of this can be put in another thread. I don't know if there's a term for it in the filmmaker's lexicon, but I will ascribe to it the term: "audience's false memory."

The following is spoilers, kinda, but not so spoilery to put up the spoil-text. Proceed at your own risk.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

In the final sequence, Jamal is asked the question: "Who is the Third Musketeer?" Immediately we remember, vividly, the early scenes where he, as a child, had "The Three Musketeers" in class, and we are treated to snippets of that sequence. Further, we remember his comments to Salim about inviting Latika underneath his shelter, "SHE could be the third Musketeer!"

And the audience is fooled into thinking that the film had stated the answer to the question in the beginning; it was not.

And the finale stretches this out by having him call his "lifeline", his brother, only to discover that Latika is on the other end of the phone (and that sequence was utterly genius)... it re-establishes her identity as "the Third Musketeer", but it also fools you into thinking that she would know the answer.

She doesn't.

Thus, the entire movie builds up to this natural climax, where the audience is fooled into thinking that the answer was given in the course of the film, when it actually wasn't (and Jamal has to rely upon luck, or "destiny" to carry the day.

This is the opposite of, say, the current wave of "Gotcha!" films, (started by _The Sixth Sense_), where the answer was given all along, but we needed it shown it to us in the final reel.

Anyway, I thought that was cool.

I found this to be a very clever and vibrant film. I think this ranks up there with Millions as Boyle's best effort. I like how he is able to convey how things look from a child's eyes, the innocence and the horror.

Boyle also does an impressive job of showing the chaotic mixture of Mumbai culture the way it is: the poverty and the bright colors, the violence and the personal bonds. This isn't some idealized portrait by a Western hipster, a plate of spicy chicken tikka masala come to life. The only other entertainment I've seen that came close to this kind of illumination was The Amazing Race



I agree that the romantic angle is being overplayed by marketers. But I think there is something deeper than simply a Sleepless in Seattle-style romance. I think given the harsh conditions in which both leads lived their childhoods caused a bond based on a deep friendship to form between them. So I could understand the lengths he would go. More so than in some Hollywood romance of a guy picking up a girl through an Internet date.



Heh. That was a little over-the-top. But I was impressed that the Bollywood star did sign the autograph for the kid. I could never imagine Sean Penn or Julia Roberts giving an autograph to a kid covered in poop.



True, I think it would be asking a bit much for a film like this to be a mainstream hit. And I can't imagine this film winning Best Picture at the Oscars. I hope that this level of hype isn't thrust upon this film, so that it will be seen as a disappointment if Oscar doesn't recognize it. Because the film is an impressive accomplishment on its own merits.

Nick, Crow: You say you don’t care for the marketing of the film, the way it plays up “the romantic angle.” This truly puzzles me. Isn’t that, ultimately, what the film is about? Yes, along the way, it’s about India, and about cultural transformation over time, and about triumphing over circumstances. But its main theme is “It is written,” and in the end, the destiny that “is written” is that the two characters will be together. That’s the takeaway, that’s what sends audiences out of the theater smiling and talking about how much they enjoyed the film. The movie is, first and foremost, a romance. I don’t see why the marketing should downplay that element.

This is what disappointed me about the movie, to the extent that I was disappointed by it, which wasn't very much. But it was enough to make me question some of the unrelenting hype about the movie's supposed greatness.

Consider what would happen if the A&R department marketed "It's a Wonderful Life" by focusing incessantly about George Bailey's missing deposit crisis. Yes, this is what turns all the actions into gear, it's what gets all the characters praying in the opening sequence, it's what causes George to consider suicide as his only option, and the movie ends on a somewhat-miraculous/somewhat-natural resolution to this crisis. But there is a small amount of time focused specifically on that part of the story. That movie spends its time almost entirely on George Bailey's life, and then the whole Clarence/bells/what-if-I-were-never-born element.

I sat there, watching episode after episode, wondering when the romantic angles was going to kick in. All I had to go on was mostly fleeting edits of this pretty woman from above, with no context. Being entirely from Jamal's perspective, and limited by the questions of the game show, (and consequently, of his interrogators), we are deprived of seeing Lakita in any deeper context. I don't see this as a flaw of the film, mind you; it is what it is, and I don't think it was a problem that needed to be overcome. We are given enough of her story to feel genuine emotion in those final moments; we had witnessed enough thru Jamal's eyes to understand why he was "destined" to be with her, and frustrated when that pure romantic gesture was delayed until the very end.

But considering everything that happened to Jamal during the course of the film, Lakita really is a small part of it. India's transformation into world economic power takes more center stage.

The movie earns a big fat "meh" from me.

Dickens? Well... perhaps a Cliff's Notes edition.

We travel through all kinds of heartbreak, and all kinds of scenes that beat us over the head shouting 'FEEL! FEEL! FEEL!', but wraps up being just a variation on The Last of the Mohicans' "I will find you! No matter what it takes!"

I couldn't feel good about the ending, and I can't believe the movie wanted me to, considering all of the horrors and heartbreaks we'd passed through as if we were on an amusement-park rollercoaster ride. I kept saying to myself, "I really think I'm supposed to want to dance at the end. And I really, really, really don't." What would I be celebrating, anyway? One of the most spectacularly contrived conclusions I've ever seen (the game show).

I liked Moulin Rouge, because it was a celebration of all things pop. The form suited the function. I wasn't supposed to believe in the characters; I was supposed to believe in the archetypes. The movie knew it was a big, nutty cartoon... and thus, it captured meaning the best way pop art can. Like opera, the exaggerations were the point.

But I think I'm supposed to believe in these characters... and yet, I don't. Not for a moment. Boyle never let me sink into a scene long enough to believe in them, never held a shot long enough for me to feel a genuine emotion. He grew them up so fast, I kept getting mixed up as to which brother was which. He just wrung emotions out of me with blasting pop songs and hyperactive camerawork. And I don't like being manhandled.

This plunged me into the abyss of real-world horrors and wanted me to celebrate the guy getting the girl at the end? What about the boy who'd been blinded (for starters)? This isn't my idea of the kind of love that's going to save the world. And "It is written", or "Destiny," or whatever label you slap on it doesn't move me. It didn't look like Providence. It was about as profound as The Tale of Despereaux on Steroids wrapping up with "Thank God for Good Luck!"

I like amusement park rides, but not when they take me through a replica of Calcutta's Red-Light district.

While the film takes stabs at the hollowness of capitalism and greed, this film's eagerness to please the audience with every single shot, song, line, and moment felt too much like a product of that very machine.

I'm not saying that those of you who love it didn't encounter something real. I'm just saying... this is how it felt to me. And I say that as a big fan of Danny Boyle. I believed in Millions one hundred times more than I believe in this film. Heck, I found 28 Days Later more affecting.

I remember thinking in the opening moments, "They'd better have a damned good explanation for why they're putting us through torture scenes like this." I've seen enough episodes of Alias and 24 that I just don't go for grisly torture for the sake of suspense anymore. I was upset with Ridley Scott for making an action scene out of torture in Body of Lies. And when it turned out that the torture was being carried out against Jamal because of the freaking game-show streak... I couldn't believe it. Are you kidding me? And then he just turns around and goes back on TV as if nothing happened? Sorry... you've booted me so far out of my suspension of disbelief I can't possibly get back.

Okay... having said all that. Yeah, there were some really, really cool shots.

Suderman agrees with the thumbs-downers.

MLeary wrote:
: Suderman agrees with the thumbs-downers.

Ahem.

Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, I would also note the scene where a girl is abducted, a knife held to her throat, and then the camera shows us the knife slicing her cheek as the car drives away.

Absolutely. I thought the exact same thing as I was watching it. I haven't been this disturbed by the violence in a film since Vantage Point, which was a pointless violent shoot-em-up that billed itself as an intelligent drama.

And I second the comment about Millions.

D. It is Written

I loved that the film ended on this note; tying everything together. I'm surprised at how many here disliked this film honestly; while I don't think it is my favorite film of the year (Man on Wire or Wall-E are much more personal favorites), there was something beautiful about this movie, and it wasn't just the lead actress or the cinematography.



I agree with this; to be honest the reason this isn't the best movie of the year that I saw is because I wasn't fully wrapped up in it until the third act.

But I'm beginning to understand that is the very power of the film.



I think this film was a beautiful portrayal of hope in desolation. No one has mentioned this yet in this thread, but it is the thought I keep coming back to after seeing the film last night -

This film is a fictional embodiment of the Problem of Evil. Now, don't get me wrong, this film isn't Christian, it is at best existential and at worst hollywood-feel-good. But at the core, the film asks us to believe that there is goodness, love, and beauty in the midst of the tragedy of this world.

Take the outhouse episode; it is a very literal expression of this: despite being covered in shit, this kid is ecstatic at what he has received, blissfully unaware of his current situation.


I ran into a friend at the theater who has spent a year in India working in the slums and with orphans. She told me (and this helped me enjoy the film more in hindsight) that they got everything right, down to the smallest details.

Look at the tragedies in this film; religious murders/riots resulting in the loss of their mother, human trafficking (which is really what the whole orphanage situation was), rape, murder, betrayal, all set in the extreme (unimaginable) poverty of the slums of India. This film didn't shirk back from showing us the world we live in.

But it also held on to beauty, to hope, to "destiny." And I guess my Christian response to this movie was, man, I understand what they are getting at. I see that tragedy and I want to know that there is something greater written, and I believe there is. I could not understand this world, these tragedies, unless I had something in my life that was greater than them.

I'm not really for reading Christ into movies, which is why I don't say this was a Christian movie; but it struck me on a level that not many films do, because it challenged me to ask if my faith caused me to believe that there was something greater.

I wanted to talk about the film on a technical level, but this post is long enough.

To clarify on my "this was the power of the film."

The film wasn't able to have its visceral effect without the two thirds of the film that "seemed weaker." The scope of what was exposed in those first two thirds is immense; the history of the two brothers and Latika, their characters, but even more the situation in India. We understand fully what it is like to live in India.

I think the problems that Overstreet had were not so much that the film is yelling FEEL FEEL FEEL, but that it is a whole gamut of emotions intertwined; there is no overwhelming feeling that is expressed in the first two thirds. There is the shock and confusion over his torture, the joy and innocence of watching these children somehow cling to innocence, the horror and anger as they are subjected to a myriad of problems.

This film could not have such an emphatic third act unless we fully understood its context, and there was no better way to expose this context than the masterful editing, writing, and directing in the first two thirds.

I didn't feel the film was manhandling me, so much as trying to make me understand, to "get it," to know what it is like to be slumdog in India. And that's a pretty abusive process in an hour and a half, because there is nothing in my experience that can prepare me for that world.

No, that's not what I meant at all.

I meant that the film was striving so hard to make me feel something that it was pulling out all kinds of cliches and implausibly extreme measures to involve me emotionally... shortcuts, cheap tricks, rather than storytelling nuance and character development. Start with a torture scene! Never mind that the torture scene is, ultimately, rather implausible and silly, especially considering how the effects of the brutality magically vanish in the events that follow immediately afterward. The film machine-guns commercial-movie cliches at us so fast that I could hardly think about the story. The simplistic characters stood in such stark contrast to the realism of the context that the tension spoiled my ability to care or believe. And the film's pop-song portrayal of true love made the relationship at the center of Twilight seem complicated and interesting by comparison.

But no, I certainly don't want a movie to have one "overwhelming" feeling.

Quote of the week:

Well, I'm glad you admitted that this was just your feelings, because mine absolutely differed.

But I can see where one would get what you felt, and I just wonder if the story could have been told any differently, or if these problems that you had were inherent to the scope of the story.

I am convinced that the story could have been told in a way that developed interesting, nuanced characters. Boyle's done it so many times before. I sure don't see that here. And I'm convinced the romance could have been interesting. Take The Fisher King, for example: A fairy tale of a movie. A movie that moves very, very quickly. And yet, somehow, it develops not one but two love stories between four terribly interesting characters of depth, personality, and detail.

The editing, the sound, and the fury of the style strive to make things seem exciting that look to me like lazy storytelling.

For example: How do the boys escape from the villains? How many times have we seen that? Make them think you're playing along and then... Boom! Throw something in one of the bad guys' face! Then... just run! Run into the trees! They're grown men, faster and stronger, but no, they'll be so astonished that they'll never catch you. and even if they try, well... look there! The oldest escape cliche in the book: A passing train! With an open box car, no less! And just in time! The only thing that would be more predictable is if one of them couldn't keep up and was left behind. Oh, wait...

Again and again, I sensed hyperactive style and contextual texture trying to distract me from the laziness of the storytelling. From Jamal's posing as a dishwasher to his game show guesses to his narrow escapes, everything just seemed too easy and convenient, and every hard turn felt exaggerated for shock value.

FWIW, Winston, I interpreted it much as you do. Often I think people react negatively to things because they're expecting them to be something other than what they are: "Why isn't this movie Millions? or Trainspotting? or The New World? or Twilight?" Well, it's not. And maybe it's not a "Danny Boyle" movie, either--whatever that may be (and FWIW, Millions is among of my all-time favorites). I'm no fan of violence--I haven't watched Alias or 24 since their first seasons, I passed on Kill Bill 1 & 2, despite all the raves on A&F ("it's played for humor!" "it's redemptive in the end!"), Grindhouse, There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, and I wish I had skipped The Dark Knight. But I didn't watch TDK thinking, "why isn't this movie Gosford Park?"

There were scenes I could barely watch, but as a whole, Slumdog Millionaire worked. Could it have been better? Sure--most things can. As a Bollywood/Hollywood crossover: Brilliant.