Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Overstreet

Slumdog Millionaire

Recommended Posts

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
which also schizophrenically wants to be a fairy tale

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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.

which also schizophrenically wants to be a fairy tale

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

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:

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).

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:

Of course, stage versions of these stories run the risk of terrifying children, but they do so within the controlled conditions of a theatre {or a movie} ...Like the best of these ancient stories, {they} reminded us that while "happy ever after" is the stuff of fairytales, growing up and surviving our parents - and their parenting - is something we all have to do.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... 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.
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

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.

And that outhouse episode.

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Overstreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suderman agrees with the thumbs-downers.

Or, to put it another way: Slumdog's raves are ridiculous and mind-numbing, and after reading them you may even feel like shredding the newspaper into pieces yourself. Sentences are not enough to describe the reviews this movie is getting, which may be the most undeservedly fawning of the year. The reviews huff and puff; they irritate, exaggerate, ingratiate, put off.

Hey, wait a minute! Is that overstatement? Sure. But no more so than any of the slavering reviews the movie has inspired.

Needless to say, this is the sort of movie where characters keep basically the same hairstyle for all of their lives in order to maintain continuity between the different actors.

When, then, is the critical reaction is so grossly effusive? Perhaps because of the way the film covers its bathos with relatively graphic violence; children have their eyes put out with boiling acid, young girls are sent into prostitution, teenage boys end up as gun-toting enforcers for slumlord gangsters. It's an easy, manipulative, and wholly unnecessary way to shock the audience, and none of it makes up for the fact that it's still a movie that relies on shamelessly mawkish lines...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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 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 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Edited by Overstreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and I just wonder if the story could have been told any differently

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×