Disappointing. No other word for it. A fine movie on all accounts, very visually appealing in many ways, but the light handle of dark topics made the whole film off-kilter and rather silly. In addition the ending was absolutely and ridiculously tact on. Happy ever after made no sense considering the rest of the film and seemed like a manipulative attempt to fool the audience into thinking they watched a happy go lucky film not a disaster ridden film.
Originally posted by Howard Beale
Happy ever after made no sense considering the rest of the film and seemed like a manipulative attempt to fool the audience into thinking they watched a happy go lucky film not a disaster ridden film.
"Disaster ridden film," come on. Seems like you're just bitter that the film wasn't depressing, which would be more of a personal problem than a flaw in the movie.
it had its light moments but let us review, kid's mom gets killed by muslim haters, kid has to escape them, joins a group only to have to run to escape losing his eyes, goes back and his brother becomes a murder, his brother steals and rapes his love, love and brother became intertwined in gang, has to run again but this time all alone. When finally finds love she is being controlled by gang leader. He gets on the show and is brutally tortured for being lucky, or having destiny or whatever, and the only reason he lives ever after is because his brother sacrifices himself.
That's happy and uplifting? The ending was not the only part of the film, so even though those 30 seconds were definitely happy, and a few other moments as well, this overall was a pretty dark story told through an unevenly light filter.
I love dark movies don't get me wrong, No Country for Old Men is my favorite film of all time, I'm just saying this was unbalanced in its light approach of dark topics.
Originally posted by jaden101
I find that criticism a bit odd given that you list In Bruges as in your signature as, what i can only presume, are your favourite films of the last year. It too dealt with a dark subject matter and did so in an even more humourous and light way than Slumdog Millionaire did.
hmm fair point but I think the difference is I like the manner that took up. In Bruges was clearly a light hearted film that wasn't too concerned with the dramatic and dark material. I found Slumdog struggled to find that balance and never did. That's just IMO, I can see how someone would love this film, and can see why it received the oscar buzz I just don't enjoy it as much.
Originally posted by Howard Beale
hmm fair point but I think the difference is I like the manner that took up. In Bruges was clearly a light hearted film that wasn't too concerned with the dramatic and dark material. I found Slumdog struggled to find that balance and never did. That's just IMO, I can see how someone would love this film, and can see why it received the oscar buzz I just don't enjoy it as much.
Wow...,In Bruges was a lighthearted film? We must have watched two different movies. In Bruges was a very black comedy. Lighthearted is not a word i would use to describe In Bruges. I also wouldn't use the word to describe Slumdog Millionaire. I can understand your perspective on Slumdog and i think what you took away from the movie was a risk that Danny Boyle gambled against. I do not believe that he wanted to convey a depressing message or atmosphere but those elements are definitely apparent and even though the general consensus is that the movie is uplifting and inspiring your perspective isn't wrong. In fact it is greatly reinforced by some of the movie's content.
I do have to disagree with you when you say that the movie was somewhat compromised by clumsy flashbacks. The flashback sequences were implemented and edited into the movie near seamlessly. The movie was designed around telling the story through flashbacks. It isn't as though it was a decision made on the cutting room floor to cut the movie that way. The story and pacing was constructed around the flashback sequences.
Personally, i didn't get any sense of depression. It was a realistic story that culminated into a fantastical and cliche ending but that is why the movie works. The tone of most movies of this kind are determined by the films ending and message. I didn't see the death of Jamals mother depressing or shocking but rather a tragic event that happened to him. Now, perhaps if the movie had been told in a linear fashion it would have had a depressing impact but it was merely a memory being had by a grown man. A memory that was being recalled to explain how he knew the answer to a question.
The entire movie revolved around destiny. Why Jamals destiny turned out how it did could be debated many different ways but as for his brothers destiny, well that was very clearly explained by his decisions. Salims choice of redemption came with a price. By choosing to do what he did he gave his brother and Latika a future. His choice gave his heart rest as well as allowing Jamals destiny to come to fruition. So, i didn't find his death depressing at all, i found it to be a beautiful gesture as well as justified. I'm not trying to prove your views wrong. I am just sharing my opinions because i can certainly see how you came to the conclusions that you did.
well thank you for the respectful way of putting it. We're all entitled to our opinions and I would never try to disprove anyone else's I am simply enforcing mine. We'll chalk it up to this, there were many flaws to this film, however that happens in almost every movie ever, normally I would be saying don't worry about these flaws, and that this is a great film. The reason I gave this a weak 8 instead of a strong 9.5 is....I'm not sure to be honest. I often overlook all the flaws that I whine about in this film. So in the end I guess I just didn't like it as much. I would have to watch again to be able to touch further on why, all I know is it just didn't hit the nerve with me it has with everyone else.
I agree, this was just such an over-hyped moderately good film. Personally I found it good to the core, and never even close to fantastic. The bollywood aspect is mostly just manipulation and the "happy ever after" feel is silly. I hope BB finds a way to beat out SM for BP or I will be very upset with the oscars this year.
I thought it was very good, but still it didn't propel me into a rave, you-must-see-mode. Honestly, I thought Danny Boyle would have been capable of more (maybe, Trainspotting aside). There were parts that made me feel I was watching a so-so foreign film, they were so roughly hewn. The flashbacks were a pretty clumsy affair. Maybe that was intentional, to capture the spirit of Bollywood quickies, but paying homage to amateurism doesnt make for a classic. I didnt think it approached the real poignancy of Salaam Bombay or absolute brilliance of City of God. And hanging the plot around "Who wants to be a Millionaire' constitutes a bit of a low-brow thrill. But the cast was excellent, and I was glad I watched it, and I suppose that's good enough.
Originally posted by liebe911
It may be difficult for people to understand the movie, who does not know a bit about India and its people. Yes and about Bollywood endings its so funny like "Then they lived happily ever" Oh....
I dont think I need to know anything about India or its people to grasp the content of the movie.
Re: Re: Re: Slumdog Millionaires...I dont get it
Originally posted by HammyTyme
Thats your opinion. Doesn't mean I am any less wrong with my assumption
It's the shared opinion of the majority of critics and moviegoers alike. It should be obvious to see why people are fascinated by one of the most well-recieved films of the past year. People that have seen Slumdog Millionaire (as a whole) enjoyed it, therefore people who have not seen it will have the desire to do so.
This really isn't rocket science.