Slumdog Millionaire
thesolelife
369 Posts
Anyone seen the flick yet?b, 21b, 21 img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohmyer1.gif" alt="" 21 
thesolelife
369 Posts
Comments
I didn't find it wack - it was enjoyable as far as paint-by-numbers fairy tales go - but I kept waiting for the film to become "good" and by the time the Bollywood number rolled, I realize that moment wasn't going to happen.
Yeah I felt the same way. I really wanted to like it more, but the characters were kind of blah and there really were not too many surprises in the plot. It had its moments, but did not live up to the hype.
The Indian Regis was sleezy as all heck. He was hillarious!
Yeah - i thought a lot of the secondary characters - the host, the main cop - were all more interesting than either Jamal or Latika. Salim was the most compelling of the three leads even though I thought the filmmakers took a cheap way of "resolving" his arc.
I mean - I thought the film was fine. I didn't want my money back. But I'm really amazed and how strong the support of the film is. I can't understand what people thought was so brilliant about this. It was well-directed but I was surprised at how superficial it was overall.
The flashback scenes with the kids worked very well, imo. Their antics were pretty funny & their situation was pretty dire, which I think won people's sympathies. I'd also say that the kids put in some good performances. They pulled me right into the film. I liked Salim as a character, but I was more into the romance angle of the plot. Near the end, I didn't care as much about Jamal winning the show as I did about his reunion with Latika. Jamal was a good actor; he had a deer caught in the headlights kind of aspect to his character that could have been annoying, if he wasn't as charming as he was. I understand that the actor who played Jamal had never been to India before the movie. From the moment I had a sense of the film's plot I knew how it was going to end, but that didn't bother me at all. I don't know how else I would have resolved Salim's arc. I guess I couldn't see it ending in any other way because in most of the Indian films I've seen, guys like him always die at the end. Then again, western films aren't all that different. Carlito didn't get on a plane & go to the Carribean.
well, benjamin buttons was the notebook meets forrest gump unfortunately.
multiple overhyped movies out this weekend i guess......
ps: i've heard a bit about the "city of god" comparisons in comments of the movie...and im tempted to think these comments generally come from north americans with no connections to third world countries. ie) "kids dealing with organized crime? thats unheard of! they must have jacked that from city of god"
Blame Billy Blanco from the Bronx.
The "City of God" comparisons are just a tad deeper than "kids dealing with organized crime." Both films begin by focusing on two main young people who grow up in the slums and then follows their arc into early adulthood - one choosing a life of crime, one choosing the "straight" route. That plus the level of stylization of slum life in both films make for an easy comparison too. I'm not suggesting Boyle bit Meirelles in any direct way, only that I thought the latter pulled off a far more compelling film than Boyle, working with similar elements. But as a friend pointed out, Boyle IS a genre filmmaker so in essence, he's working with pre-determined narratives rather than truly trying to create something 100% original. And that's fine - I love genre films - but when you're working with formulas, the challenge becomes in trying to transcend the conventions you're given and something like "Dark Knight" was an incredible flip on the superhero film whereas I thought "SM" was an enjoyable but otherwise rather slight rags-to-riches fairy tale.
BTW: for me, "authenticity" isn't the point, nor should it be. I have no idea if Mumbai/Bombay was properly represented though if Boyle's point was give the viewer a sensorial impression of slum life, I thought he succeeded quite well (perhaps to the point of aestheticizing poverty).
SPOILERS
That's the thing: I think a more interesting route would simply to have left Salim's arc "unresolved". To me, his death was necessitated by two forces:
1) Since his existence threatens Jamal's happiness with Latika (since he's been that foil throughout the movie), his death is the only way Jamal and Latika are promised a happy ending .
2) He has to pay for his sins even though most of them - with the exception of Latika's rape - were necessitated more by survival than any remote sense of evil. That's why I thought he was so much more of a compelling character than Jamal. Jamal was a straight up boy scout, driven by this (really underdeveloped) need to "save" Latika (which doesn't say much about the kind of agency she's given but hey, surprise, surprise - yet another film with a weak but beautiful female character who needs a white - in this case, brown - knight to save her. Whereas Salim has to make the hard choices that his brother doesn't have to make...in fact, he makes some of them so Jamal DOESN'T have to be sullied by the moral ambiguities of killing a pimp or working for a gangster. Salim isn't a boy scout - he does some bad shit - but he's also trying to protect his brother and do right by him and that complexity felt really compelling next to how cardboard-cut Jamal came off.
Also, I though Salim's ending - guns blazing in a tub of money - was just ham-fisted and silly. I would have much rather seen him walk into the room, pop his boss in the dome, and jet, leaving the audience to wonder what Salim's next chapter will be. But as a genre film, "SM" couldn't really allow for that kind of ambiguity so bye-bye Salim.
I liked the film a lot. 10 times better than most of the fluff being put out there.
Go see Marley & Me next and just enjoy the film for what it is and try not to get all teary eyed at the end...
I find this one of the most consistently lazy defenses used on behalf of bad art. I mean, you could apply this to anything: movies, food, music...I dunno...probably sex too. God forbid people should ever have a I>critical[/i] reaction to anything lest we damper our enjoyment of it (as if the two were mutually exclusive).
Spoken like a true critic!
Ha, indeed. But seriously, this whole "just enjoy it" is so weaksauce to me. It's like saying all art and culture should be as intellectually undemanding as possible. As noted before, I LOVE genre films and not b/c they're all artsy and complicated. But not all genre films are equal.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with dropping your opinion (And my comment wasn't directed at you in general). It's just that movies can be used as a (you know) form of escapism or sight into another world...
I'm just saying would it kill people to just walk into a movie and just sit back and enjoy it.
"intellectually undemanding"
It must kill you to watch anything not worthy of your intellect.
Is your review of Dumb & Dumber online anywhere?
*spoilers...
dude knowing all these facts by coincidence of his experiences to land 1 milli big ones. on top of that the movie is aluding to bollywood, where plots are so over the top, but they're entertaining and thats why the typical bolly audience loves those movies, while others watch it for novelty purposes or find it kind of cheesy(if you've ever watched the bolly rendition of ET you'd agree some of the shit is godamn cheezy,but the chick was hot). you're not going to find alot of the audiences of the latest shahrukh khan flicks complaining about how lazy the standards were in the making of the movie from a cinematic standpoint. i think the director had to balance a lot of different standards and pulled it off well. but i'm by no means an expert in bollywood, and from what i've seen of more of the recent gangster bolly movies the production is way more refined, but i dont think the old school feels it too much "with all the shooting"
Yeah, I'm not faulting (or praising) it on the basis of realism. It's a fairy tale and as noted, I like fairy tales. I just don't get how this is supposed to be "movie of the year" however.
I give this film a few points alone on just the fact that it got made and will be seen around the world and I enjoyed the story. Were there a few underwhelming parts of the film. Sure... But on a whole the film worked for me.
I'm looking forward to the struts review of Marley & Me. Who will be the first to say they hated the film cause the dog was named after Bob...
For real - it's not that I feel the need - or desire - to critically analyze anything. But "SM" is being sold as one of the best films of the year rather than some garden-variety feel-good flick. So my analysis of it is mostly in response to trying to understand what's so great about it.
As for "Marley and Me" - I have no plans to watch it but I think what's surprised folks I know who saw it was how serious and kind of depressing a film it is. Apparently not really a "family" film in any conventional sense.
"Revolutionary Road" meets "Benji."
"Intellectually Undemanding"? With all due respect, I think your PHD has gone to your head, sir. lol.
On the topic of Slumdog... saw it last night.
the film is edited and filmed/framed superbly, great usage of the city landscape and colour.
The story is presented in a different and interesting way although it creates some slow parts and a few plot holes/jumps in narration, but I liked the fact that it was presented in a non linear way.
Its supposed to be based on a true story so I dont know how much of the things that shit me in the story were real life and had to be included.
The main actor who played Jamal wasa good choice for the role, Im a fan of his work in 'Skins' (anyone seen this? dope series from the UK) but at times he didnt look 'man' enough compared to his brother.
I wouldnt go to the cinema to see it but its got some legs on it.