Slumdog Millionaire

[Smokey]

Slumdog Millionaire was nominated for 10 Academy Awards in 2009 and won eight, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay. So had to see if it measure up to all the commotions.

After viewing it for first time recently, I was kind of disappointed and wondering why this movie got so much attention. There is too much violence and too much flashbacks. As soon as story get going, there is another flashback and this keep reapeating throu the whole movie which can be a turn off.

I think this movie got alot of attention since it shows the "real" India which we don't see too often. However the charactors are one dimentional and lost my interest during early in the movie. Especially the host of TV show which try to be funny, but was more annoying.

The only thing liked about this movie was the camera work, but in the mist of all the flashbacks, violence and misery, it was lost.

[recoveryone]

was that the BR version?

[Hyfi]

It broke the Bollywood mold and was made for an english speaking audience.

[Worf101]

I definately find some of your criticisms of SDM valid. However I was drawn in early on and never left. Having grown up poor I'm always affected by poverty on film and I'm also a sucker for underdog films. I enjoyed it in the theatre but have not watched it since.

Worf

[Smokey]

Having grown up poor I'm always affected by poverty on film and I'm also a sucker for underdog films.

After reading several reviewers of this film who said they were from India, they condemed this movie for exaggerating poverty in the slums and on the streets. Given that poverty do exist, they say alot of squaters have TVs, stereos, running water etc. and it is not as bad as it is portrait on the film.

But the Cows still roam streets freely which make good steaks

Was that the BR version?

No, but the review stay the same

[Feanor]

After reading several reviewers of this film who said they were from India, they condemed this movie for exaggerating poverty in the slums and on the streets. Given that poverty do exist, they say alot of squaters have TVs, stereos, running water etc. and it is not as bad as it is portrait on the film.

But the Cows still roam streets freely which make good steaks
...

Exaggerating poverty? Boo!! This is shades of the social conservative sh!t we're hearing in the current US political debate In the latter context we hear a lot of crap about how American poor are actually pretty well off, e.g. 95% have refrigerators, etc.. I'll bet the the mentioned reviewers wouldn't like to trade places with the US poor much less the Mumbai poor.

And do they seriously content that the children of the poor in either country have the same health and educational prospects as the genuinely well-off?. (Romney: "I'm not worried about the poor ...".) Give me a break.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I loved this movie, and voted for it. The sound and camera work is first rate, and the story was totally compelling to me.

When I taught the sound class at the Academy of Art a couple of months ago, I used this movie's sound work as an excellent example of top notch sound mixing.

[Smokey]

Exaggerating poverty? Boo!!

Feanor, have you ever been to India

If no, neither have I and you have to go by what media showing or from somebody that have lived there. Poor do exist in that country and there is no denying that, but they also have made great strive in ecomonic front in last quarter century (third largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity).

[Feanor]

Feanor, have you ever been to India

If no, neither have I and you have to go by what media showing or from somebody that have lived there. Poor do exist in that country and there is no denying that, but they also have made great strive in ecomonic front in last quarter century (third largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity).

Really? The India economy is doing well, sure, and there is an emerging middle class, but is the lot of the real poor improving? For that matter, how about the real poor in the USA, (bearing in mind that poverty is to a large extent relative)?

No, I haven't been to India. Yes, I've spoken to people from there. And yes I do rely a lot on media; (not Fox News).

[Smokey]

Really? The India economy is doing well, sure, and there is an emerging middle class, but is the lot of the real poor improving? For that matter, how about the real poor in the USA, (bearing in mind that poverty is to a large extent relative)?

You really can not compare poor folks in developed country to those so called developing countries. There is a safety net for less fortunate in the former catagory (such as food stamp, welfare, homeless shelter, soup kitchen, etc..) that exist. You don't see no orphans running in streets begging for money.

But there is no such a safety net for so called third world countries. In those societies, either your relatives or family will take care of their less fortunate, or other wise they be living on streets with no food or shelter.

I also talk to one of my coworker who is from India and ask him about our discussion and the movie. He said the slums do exist (especially in big cities) and few might look what is shown in the movie, but not necessary all of them.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Feanor, have you ever been to India

If no, neither have I and you have to go by what media showing or from somebody that have lived there. Poor do exist in that country and there is no denying that, but they also have made great strive in ecomonic front in last quarter century (third largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity).

I have been to India, and their economy is progressing and growing. Unfortunately just like in America, that improvement is not widespread, and still leaving massive amounts of people behind. Most of the wealth is going to just a few people. There is a burgeoning middle class, but their progress is slow and steady. This is much like China, except China's prosperity is just a bit more widespread.

[Smokey]

I have been to India, and their economy is progressing and growing.

Did you ride the urban trains

I think one thing that is working in favor of India (as compare to China) is that English is also official laungage, and are more democratic than China (Internet restriction, etc..). So it make them more transparent in Global Economy/outsourcing.

Here is also another movie reviewer who has been to India, calling the movie "poverty porn":

Amazon.com: N. Kulkarni "Nicholas K"'s review of Slumdog Millionaire

[Feanor]

You really can not compare poor folks in developed country to those so called developing countries. There is a safety net for less fortunate in the former catagory (such as food stamp, welfare, homeless shelter, soup kitchen, etc..) that exist. You don't see no orphans running in streets begging for money.
....

Yep. Mitt Romney isn't worried about America's poor -- just ask him.

[Smokey]

Yep. Mitt Romney isn't worried about America's poor -- just ask him.

Romney is a joke, so as Gingrich. But like Ron Paul for telling it like it is

[Feanor]

Romney is a joke, so as Gingrich. But like Ron Paul for telling it like it is

Listening to coverage, I agree that Ron Paul is more forthright than the other candidates -- which I've got to respect. I think he's close on foreign policy, but full Libertarianism is ridiculous.

Oh, but BTW, Paul supports maximum personal freedoms except for women's-right-to-choose. That sort of undermines his message, IMO.

[Hyfi]

OK, a more serious reply this time.

I just spoke with a few of my co-workers, from India. They said that yes, there are slums in areas but it is not the norm. Just like North Philly is to the rest of Philly.

As for the blinding of children, yes it is true but less widespread than parents forcing their own children into pan-handling which has recently been being cracked down on by police.

They did not like the movie as it was depressing, and made their country look bad since it seemed to imply it was the norm.

[Feanor]

OK, a more serious reply this time.

I just spoke with a few of my co-workers, from India. They said that yes, there are slums in areas but it is not the norm. Just like North Philly is to the rest of Philly.

As for the blinding of children, yes it is true but less widespread than parents forcing their own children into pan-handling which has recently been being cracked down on by police.

They did not like the movie as it was depressing, and made their country look bad since it seemed to imply it was the norm.

Again seriously, I thought SDM was very good. I didn't find it depressing maybe because I didn't assume the poverty was the country-wide norm.

I don't feel the film project the poverty as the Indian norm any more than one of my favourite films of last year, Winter's Bone, projected Ozark poverty as the American norm.

[Hyfi]

Again seriously, I thought SDM was very good. I didn't find it depressing maybe because I didn't assume the poverty was the country-wide norm.

I don't feel the film project the poverty as the Indian norm any more than one of my favourite films of last year, Winter's Bone, projected Ozark poverty as the American norm.

Yeah, that was a depressing movie. I spent a week in Arkansas back in 2000, at the foothills of the Ozarks. While the family I was staying with had a house and acres like the house from Dallas, I was driven around the area where there were large spots you just don't go if you're not with a local (with a shotgun hanging behind the driver in the pickup truck). He showed us many houses that housed Crack dealers who make the crap in the bathtub.

That whole area was depressed and scary and the people had very few teeth left.

[kevlarus]

Yeah, that was a depressing movie. I spent a week in Arkansas back in 2000, at the foothills of the Ozarks. While the family I was staying with had a house and acres like the house from Dallas, I was driven around the area where there were large spots you just don't go if you're not with a local (with a shotgun hanging behind the driver in the pickup truck). He showed us many houses that housed Crack dealers who make the crap in the bathtub.

That whole area was depressed and scary and the people had very few teeth left.

The reason for the "local" is so that they can talk and will be accepted. If you talk, just your accent will open the door to the "let me show you the woods". Just because he was able to show you places like that, doesn't mean all of the Ozarks are that way.

It's meth, that's what destroys the teeth and seems popular in that area of the country.

re: Deliverance

It's a cultural thing just as it is in many other places, such as Northeast US or even Canada.

[Hyfi]

The reason for the "local" is so that they can talk and will be accepted. If you talk, just your accent will open the door to the "let me show you the woods". Just because he was able to show you places like that, doesn't mean all of the Ozarks are that way.

It's meth, that's what destroys the teeth and seems popular in that area of the country.

re: Deliverance

It's a cultural thing just as it is in many other places, such as Northeast US or even Canada.

I wasn't implying that all of AK was like that, just that I was able to get a glimpse of reality that most people never see or realize exists.

[RGA]

Slumdog was my choice for best film - but then I didn't see all of them - but out of the films I did see - it was my first choice.

I used to be a massive movie watcher in the late 80s and through the 90s - I was planning to be a film critic with the English degree and I saw over 60 movies in the theaters most years. But after awhile it was wearing on me and the bad heavily outweigh the good.

I also found I was not in agreement with most of the films the academy chose as best picture. From 1980 to 2000 I think I agreed with them twice and close on about 4. Schindler's List in 1993 and American Beauty in I think 97 or 98. Slumdog (but not having seen some of the others - tough to say). Haven't seen any of the nominated films this year or last year.

The Academy does dumb things in my view.

Take Leaving Las Vegas in 1995. It was nominated for four of the major awards - Director, Screenplay, Actor, Actress (winning Best Actor for Cage) and yet it doesn't get nominated best film. WTF. You just said it was one of the five best WRITTEN movies - you just said the director EXECUTED the screenplay, and you just said the two main actors (there was no supporting performances available) were in the top 5 and one was the best.

And it doesn't even get nominated for film - DUMB. Instead they gave the award to Braveheart - Jeezus the academy is dumb - but I could sort of get that but Leaving Las Vegas should have been nominated of at least 2 of the remaining five like Sense and Sensibility - period drama OK but at least a great one not "whatever one happened to have come out of Britain that year).

I can even see Forrest Gump - it was my 4th choice out of the five nominated films but I get it. Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas - who can I shoot? Gladiator was the year I gave up - big pile of caca that film and not only did it get nominated (shudder) it won - and it won best actor - you have got to be kidding me.

A Beautiful Mind a grossly inaccurate film (but then so was Braveheart) won but it could have been worse they could have given it to LOTR - (they eventually caved it and gave it to the third one which had what 3 endings in one movie -bloody hell)

All the other nominated films were better than the the third LOTR movie (which isn't saying much) . I said that in 1997 when Titanic won though at least I gave Titanic a marginal thumbs up - that boat cracking scene looked bad then and it still looks bad now - pretty crappy special effects for a Cameron movie. But hey we get to hear Celine Dion hamming it up over the top and the usual one dimensional villains - boy Cameron is hopeless with anything approaching "deep characters." At least Avatar didn't win - the academy might be getting a clue.

I agreed with Million Dollar Baby out of the ones nominated - saw all of them. And I liked all of them.

2005 Crash won - fairly weak year - I had Munich or Good Night and Good Luck but Crash was respectable if a little preachy - reminded me of Grand Canyon in some respects - a little missed gem (oddly by the guy who usually writes for Cameron - Lawrence Kasdan)

And now they nominate 10 films for best picture - really? Have a sense of tradition - they're so desperate to get people in a theater they needs to market more "academy award nominated" LOL. Bloody hell it should be like the Hall of Fame - mediocre junk should not get nominated much less win. See Gladiator, LOTR, Beautiful Mind. Blegh.