Hmmm… weirdly finding myself in the habit of defending mainstream movies on this board. Strange, usually it’s the other way around. Anyway…
I rather enjoyed Slumdog Millionaire—enjoyed it much more than Benjamin Button and was thrilled that it took all those Oscars away from the latter. I mostly liked the fact that every question doesn’t just simply relate to something the main character experienced, but something traumatic and depressing that the main character experienced; all that pain, and yet, adding up to karmic release. Yes, not the most vanguard and experimental way to structure a film, but nevertheless effective.
I really like Danny Boyle in the same way I really like Wes Anderson: they have a particular world they create, and all of their separate movies are just other aspects of the world. There the comparison completely breaks down, because Wes Anderson does the slightly Ozu-like deal of repeating the same characters, situations, and sets over and over, whereas Danny Boyle seems to throw in new things each time to change the context, and the two of them have completely different styles. Whereas Slumdog Millionaire obviously has nothing to do with Sunshine or Millions or 28 Days Later…, I still can’t help but feel like, as zombies are running around in London after some kid found a bunch of cash on the side of some train tracks, a troupe of astronauts are on an adventure to save the sun so that it can still shine over the ghettos of Mumbai, where kids are running around playing Three Muskateers. For some reason, there’s a love of humanity in Boyle’s work that feels quite sincere and sticks out beyond the stylistic, visually dazzling things he does with his camera (which I happen to find really great as well).
So there you go. I don’t think Slumdog Millionaire is overrated. I found it a very lush, appealing, and entertaining film. Yes, I guess I can concede the earlier point made that it’s not important, but it’s not meant to be and nor do I care. And as someone who wishes more films tried to be important, still I have to throw out the point that sometimes it’s just a movie, man. Relax and enjoy the popcorn.
—PolarisDiB
If it wasnt for Danny Boyle’s crazy music video style direction, the film would have looked like a Disney channel movie.
PolarisDiB, I think the problem is everyone is saying it is important. That’s what makes it overrated. I enjoyed the movie enough while watching it but the reason I am so against it is that everyone is calling it a masterpiece.
I like most of Danny Boyle’s films, was very eager to see Slumdog Millionaire because I thought it would be a typical Boyle film, but it turned out to be a feel-good movie, and fortunately I enjoyed it very much. And I must say that I think Boyle deserves all the praise and awards he got (especially after the box office failure of Sunshine – which I like the most of his films). His body of work and individuality surpasses that of many other directors.
But the most overrated film was definitely Benjamin Button (or Dark Knight, but I don’t take DK seriously because of certain obvious reasons), and I know that most people on this site will agree.
This film is not only overrated, it’s horrendous. The motives for the characters are poorly thought out. The acting was unbelievably terrible. There certain scenes that make no sense and look absolutely ridiculous (Dev Patel’s idiot brother bathing himself in money – WHY WAS THAT FILMED?). Worst of all, there are plot holes galore (How does a blind kid know who’s on the $100 bill)?
Kevin Malone said it best. What a waste.
Okay, so I watched the Blu ray this weekend. I have to say, I liked it very much. It moved me and I did not feel manipulated by it. The film was very original even though we’ve seen the story many time. Danny Boyle and company made someting very original.
My assessment of this film was that it’s CITY OF GOD meets SERENDIPITY, and the result was as uneasy a mix as you would expect from that hybrid.
I enjoyed the cinematography, but found the story far-fetched I suppose. It also bothered me that it was by a British director…I didn’t feel like it was a ‘true’ insight into the slums, and was sometimes a little patronising.
@Drew: Ah yes. “Importance.” Fey. I don’t consider the movie “important” but I don’t do that often unless the movie actually causes riots (L’age d’or) or is used by someone for a purpose (military training via “The Battle of Algiers”; Ku Klux Klan resource a la “Birth of a Nation”) or does in fact change the way cinema is seen/shot (Breathless, Last Year at Marienbad), or is in and of itself an “important” document (Night and Fog). Those things come out maybe once a decade.
@Josie: the slum scenes were co-directed by Loveleen Tandan. Does that help/matter to your opinion?
—PolarisDiB
Short answer to the thread question: Yes – if only because it won all those silly oscars. Is it great, is it memorable? In a couple of years, if this topic ever came up, it would be Slumdog what?? Strictly a movie for its time that will sink as fast as the many other oscar best picture winners – take your pick – that are now forgotten. Music video camera work and a script out of – as some one pointed out – what could pass as a Disney movie, do not a great movie make. This is not a film we need to concern ourselves with on the auteurs. Criterion hasn’t released it, so why do we need to discuss what is just over-hyped and will be quickly forgotten – I have forgotten it already.
I saw it three days ago in the theater and I like.It is beatiful and entertaining.
But,does it worth the hype?No way.I can’t find a good reason why both audience and critics are impressed by this film.I don’t think it is a memorable,or a great film.And I agree with Bob,it will be forgotten soon.And that this movie won 8 Oscars,doesn’t mean anything.We all know that there are so many Oscar-winning films that have nothing to do with real cinema.
And,in conclusion I have a question for everybody.I don’t want to be pessimistic,but giving so much attention to this film doesn’t mean anything about cinema nowadays?Maybe we all discuss about this film,because there aren’t many good films to discuss about.
No, I think it’s being discussed because some of us are uncredulous that this film has received the critical acclaim & awards that it has. It’s OK, but hardly the best film ina year that included MILK and SYNECDOCHE NEW YORK … among others.
I enjoyed it while watching it (though during the last 20 or so minutes I found myself silently urging, “Come on, do something I’ DON’T expect!”), but I’d barely walked all the way back to my car before its faults were pressing in on me.
Here’s the thing- they hype doesn’t make a move any better or worse than it is. I understand a lot of people’s frustration with this movie, but I’ve seen a lot of people who just won’t see this because they think it is over-rated. Truth is, it’s directed and edited extremely well and the cinematography is great. The acting and the story I really enjoyed but I can see a lot of people not going for them. It’s a good movie, it just seems ridiculous to me to add or detract merit from the movie itself because of others’ opinions about it.
I do really like the comparisons between this and LMS- really pertinent. I think uplifting/positive films tend to be judged more harshly than more ‘serious’ ones, for various artsy societal reasons. But honestly, I think they can be just as good.
PolarisDiB, thanks for that info. That does change my view on it slightly.
One big distraction for me was Dev Patel. He starred in a British TV series called Skins which was basically just teenagers going to raves, taking drugs and having sex. Seeing him in the context of Slumdog Millionaire did not work for me, because I have strongly associated him with his Skins character, Anwar. I thought that was maybe a poor casting choice made, but perhaps it’s just me being picky.
What are peoples opinions on the controversy with using kids from the slum to act and them going back to the slums etc.?
I thought the film did a nice job of handling a fairly unusual narrative structure—usually the “millionaire” show as a hook to jump between flashbacks which illustrate sequentially how he happened to come to know the answer to each of the individual questions.
Incidentally, I see this film as the third film in an informal trilogy—along with Shallow Grave and Millions—in which characters happen into large sums of money.
One of the things that annoys me about the film is that people often excuse its ridiculousness by calling it a “fairy tale” Yet fairy tale’s, while unrealistic, exist to send some sort of message or moral.
So what’s the message here? Keep up hope and through extreme coincidence things may turn out okay?
>>Truth is, it’s directed and edited extremely well and the cinematography is great.<<
And a box of Godiva chocolates sure is pretty to look at & tastes great. But it has no nutritional value.
>>One big distraction for me was Dev Patel<<
Same here, because he Can. Not. Act.
Or breathe through his nose, apparently.
>.What are peoples opinions on the controversy with using kids from the slum to act and them going back to the slums etc.?<<
Haven’t they been given much nicer aprtments & college trust funds & so forth?
They haven’t exactl;y been sent back to the slums, anyway.
>>I thought the film did a nice job of handling a fairly unusual narrative structure—usually the “millionaire” show as a hook to jump between flashbacks which illustrate sequentially how he happened to come to know the answer to each of the individual questions.<<
Oh, yeah, that complex structure sure leaves CITIZEN KANE and INTOLERANCE in the dust doesn’t it?
And isn’t it amazing that Jamal learned the information chronologically in the same exact order in which the questions would later be asked!?
I have nothing against movies that have uplifting endings, but in this case it’s a big tub o’ mush.
>>So what’s the message here? Keep up hope and through extreme coincidence things may turn out okay?<<
The message is: “It is written.”
Which is on a par with that pablum philosophy that winds up THE WIZARD OF OZ.
Slumdog was enjoyable to watch one time. I have no need to see the film again. I enjoyed the story most when the main characters were at their youngest age and the older they got – the more contrived the story became. To the point where it was borderline parody (in a bad way).
Best film last year “Let the Right One In”
Actually Harry – I believe the kids were indeed sent back to the slums until there was a public outcry. So, the folks responsible for this film have a lot to answer for in the sense that they didn’t properly look out for the childrens’ interests on their own impetus. In fact, according to this BBC article, it is via the help of local politicians and not the producers of Slumdog that this housing is being offered.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7909660.stm
I thought the film was OK; I need a film to challenge me, even piss me off, and this was fluffy. Maybe I’m a snob, but I think the film is easily dismissed. It’s film entertainment. It’s not cinema. That does not make it less valuable per se. It turns me off is all I’m saying.
What are you talking about Orphan Seasun? So what if the kids were sent back to the slums? It always works out for poor people in the end… as long as “it is written” No need to be so upset.
“Oh, yeah, that complex structure sure leaves CITIZEN KANE and INTOLERANCE in the dust doesn’t it?”
Harry, if you’re implying that in terms of narrative structure, Kane and Intolerance are more complex, you need to watch those two films again.
I think Slumdog is highly overrated as well. I mean it was a resonably enjoyable film, but did it change my life? No. And it certainly didn’t deserve Best Picture. Although my big brother did just land an opportunity to work for a very high up crew member on the film so I won’t bash it too much :)
“it certainly didn’t deserve Best Picture”
Do the best pictures ever win best picture?
“And a box of Godiva chocolates sure is pretty to look at & tastes great. But it has no nutritional value.”
Please don’t tell me that editing and cinematography are not tremendously important parts to a film. That’s just silly. It’s not the only thing, and without decent narrative structure a movie is lost, and I guess we disagree about this in SM. I love the simple, uplifting, exuberant-ness of it. It’s not life-changing or anything but I don’t think it’s empty.
“And isn’t it amazing that Jamal learned the information chronologically in the same exact order in which the questions would later be asked!?”
And isn’t it just AMAZING that Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint somehow manage to get off the face of Mount Rushmore? I’m not trying to put them on the same level or anything, but plot loopholes happen in the best of films.
Upset? Uh, OK.
I see your sarcasm, this “it is written” stuff is facile at best, but I was cooly addressing a remark by Harry (BBC article) in passing.
I already regret answering your stupid remark. I think I’ve been successfully bated. And you, sir, are the master bater. : /
Upset? Uh, OK.
I see your sarcasm, this “it is written” stuff is facile at best, but I was cooly addressing a remark by Harry (BBC article) in passing.
I already regret answering your sly remark. I think I’ve been successfully bated. And you, sir, are the master bater. : /
“>>Truth is, it’s directed and edited extremely well and the cinematography is great.<<
And a box of Godiva chocolates sure is pretty to look at & tastes great. But it has no nutritional value.”
Sigh Please… okay fine, I’ll take the bait on that metaphor. A box of Goidiva chocolates is at least a delicacy. At least it wasn’t a hamburger from McDonalds. Or some metaphor equally as thin as this one. Whatever.
“>>One big distraction for me was Dev Patel<<
Same here, because he Can. Not. Act.
Or breathe through his nose, apparently.”
I believed his character, myself. Especially on that last question, where it seemed like the entire movie came to terms in the look in his eyes as he decides to just guess the answer.
Skipping the issue of the kids going back to the slum because I’m not entirely clear on it yet
“>>I thought the film did a nice job of handling a fairly unusual narrative structure—usually the “millionaire” show as a hook to jump between flashbacks which illustrate sequentially how he happened to come to know the answer to each of the individual questions.<<
Oh, yeah, that complex structure sure leaves CITIZEN KANE and INTOLERANCE in the dust doesn’t it?
And isn’t it amazing that Jamal learned the information chronologically in the same exact order in which the questions would later be asked!?
I have nothing against movies that have uplifting endings, but in this case it’s a big tub o’ mush.”
Oop. It’s not Citizen Kane. Therefore it is awful. Truly awful.
As regards the chronology, yes, that’s generally an all-too-easy way of doing it. But still, it was effective, if for no other reason that each question reminded him of something absolutely terrible that happened to him in his life. As a karmic sum-up of cosmic events, it could have been worse. What else do you want? Patel to have multiple identities a la David Lynch? What else is supposed to FIT in this movie?
“>>So what’s the message here? Keep up hope and through extreme coincidence things may turn out okay?<<
The message is: “It is written.”
Which is on a par with that pablum philosophy that winds up THE WIZARD OF OZ.”
I agree that the theme is a rather washed out Western idealization of karma. That doesn’t change the fact that the character got what he wanted BEFORE answering the last question and getting the money, which is why he chose to guess without stress at the last moment. The pay-off isn’t the money, it’s him getting what he really wants, which is of course the girl to contact him. No, that’s not particularly Sublime Look into the Nature of Humanity, Love, and Other Philosophical Concepts to Wax Amazement Over, but again I state, the build-up was well-crafted and the movie didn’t disappoint.
Edit: and as for the issue of the Oscar, the Oscar is an industry award, which means that it is basically a community congratulating itself on its own good work; and since the industry is an industry of commodity and entertainment, it simply isn’t interested in pointing out the Best Film of the Year as regards artistic visions. Why do people take the Oscars so seriously? We don’t get up in arms when the Clio Awards choose the Budweiser frogs over the antidrug PSA. Again, I say as the Oscars go, I’m thrilled they chose Slumdog Millionaire over Benjamin Button, because I think the former was the better directed and more entertaining work.
—PolarisDiB
it is overrated. But i do think Boyle has done a great job catching the vibrancy of Bollywood, the soundtrack is great, the performances are pretty boring, there is a wealth of stock characters and the love story is very uninvolving. But this did not detract from the film being enjoyable, i would say it wasn’t worthy of an oscar, but seriously when have they got it right the last few years? an oscar now means very little!
Lester Burnam
I just saw this film last night and absolutely loved it! Loved the premise, how the story played out and the cinematography was like a series of moving stills out of Life magazine. I find it highly interesting that multiculturalism has made its way from our public schools to the film industry. I think this film is representative as to how America is now mainstreaming films such as this and marketing them to the masses. It probably wold have been nominated for “best foreign language film” 10 or 15 years ago. It says something, imo, along those lines. I think describing this film as “cute” is like describing “Schindler’s List” as “upbeat.” Where do you see it? Is it just because he wins and gets the girl at the end? I’d call it “inspiring,” I’d call it “romantic” and I’d call it “adventurous,” but “cute?” No. Don’t see it. Sorry.