|Page 9 of 104:||               |
|Index||1032 reviews in total|
This is a ridiculous farce and western celebration of a mediocre film.
It's novelty (being of 'Indian' (Bollywood) origin) is the real source
of the hype. If you have seen the greats (eg Pakeezah), Slum is an
insult. This movie is not 'Indian' or 'Asian'. It is ABOUT Indian
people, designed for mass (unthinking) consumption. And it hit the
jackpot, proving timing is everything.
The West (especially America) is frantic and hungry to embrace other cultures it never cared much for before. Ironically, as new Super Powers (India included) are emerging economic forces to reckon with, their cultures (whoever/whatever may 'represent' them) are frantically grabbed as they pass by, and hailed as "awesome", "wonderful", "great".
Though she is not in it, think of one movie Ashwarya Rai (the biggest Bollywood transport) has been in that was above mediocre. Don't think too hard -- there is none. Yet she is applauded/worshipped every corner she goes. She cannot act, she can look into the camera and...nothing. It's like Angelina Jolie without any acting skills.
One can't help but feel some embarrassment for the 'crew' of 'The Slums' as there is no doubt they are shocked by the response. They must be. Sure they must be proud too. But I see it in their faces when interviewed. They must know the movie was simply not that great. Whatever positive response/recognition was given, it was not because of the quality of the movie.
With no capacity for 'staying power' or lasting impression, a 3/10 is being very generous for this slummer. The colours were pretty.
For anyone who loves this movie (and I know there are many)...the challenge is to remove the exotic 'brown people' and leave the story as is... Is this still a great movie? Worthy of even a mention at the Oscars?? Puhlease.
Overly sentimental, anything but credible and ridiculously over-hyped,
this petty excuse of a movie managed to reel in a multitude of Oscars.
I have to admit I wasn't exactly bored while watching it, but a second
viewing just isn't going to happen.
The storyline's a wash - to name just one inconsistency, as Salman Rushdie pointed out: from Bombay to the Taj Mahal by jumping a train? Really? -, the actors don't bring anything truly endearing or sympathetic to their characters, and the 'award-winning' music is more often a nuisance than an extra to the whole movie-going experience. Don't get me wrong: I love M.I.A., for instance, but for the biggest part it just didn't work for me.
In fact, the only virtues of this film are the often astonishing landscapes, the energetic, yet dynamic camera work and the rhythmic, punctual direction. But you simply cannot make a good movie out of those three elements - except if you wanna go all 'Koyaanisqatsi', which I love. But they didn't.
Hence: six out of ten.
P.S.: To be completely honest, I would probably rate this a seven, seven and a half tops if it weren't for the suffocating hype surrounding the film, but I feel like bringing the overall score down a notch in my own humble way, because 'Slumdog' simply doesn't deserve such a high rating. I mean: Top 250? No.
Let's just wait and see who will remember this film in three to five years' time.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Warning-This review contains spoilers. What a bad movie this was and it
received 8 Oscars.how dumb can people be.the entire movie is just
crap.I would like to ask people who liked this movie to consider the
following facts: 1)how is it possible that all the questions asked to
the boy have happened in his life? 2)and if it did,how did it happen in
exact chronological order? 3)anyone with general knowledge knows that
people in slums don't go to school.how did the people from the slums of
India begin talking English,while they've never been to school 4)why
did the guy in the end choose to die in a tub with money rather than
I challenge everyone who liked this movie to answer my questions
Basically, Slumdog Millionaire is the transposition of clichéd American
cinema into the den of Bollywood. All of the layers and sub-layers are
so repeated and overly done that it causes no effect on the viewer.
It's the same applied to third world countries, it's a simple deceptive
The love story, with the man running desperately to defend his loved one, with his impositions, maybe a criminal undercurrent with already seen and done mafia innuendos, classical tension moments in which time plays a cruel role already examined. Even the moments that seem to "bring glow" from the cramped, poor slums just seem overly edited and manipulative. In story terms, nothing is actually new in the movie. Thus, nothing is truly exciting, except for those who are relatively new to Hollywood, who are tricked into believing that "glamour" was actually strained from the sets and that India (or at least Indian cinema) is close to whatever Boyle tried to create.
You've seen this thousand times, just in other countries and other cultures. Cool trick, uh?
On reflection I thought the film was exploitative and manipulative. What is its message? That TV game shows can save even the poorest of the poor? And what of the choice of actors? While the film contained harrowing scenes of a poor dark child being blinded, the make-up men clearly shirked from portraying the leading actress with credible scars at the end of the film. As the film progresses the two leading characters get progressively paler until they become 'almost' white and hence - I imagine in the view of the director - more palatable to audiences. Which half of the film are we supposed to believe in: the dire life of the slum dwellers or the cosmetic H/Bollywood romantic ending? I think it uses the former to legitimize the latter: it exploits the real Mumbai protagonists of the film by involving them at first only to drop them out of the picture to make way for its 'attractive' Europeanized leading stars. Likewise it manipulates Western audiences into thinking that India's social problems are not so bad because in the end true love (and true money) can triumph thanks to a TV game show. Or is the film just an elaborate plug for the show itself? The film was clearly tailored for affluent Western or Westernised audiences. I believe its 'social' denunciations are simply a device to fool viewers into thinking that the film is worthwhile so that it can get its real message across: celebrity TV, money, some measure of astuteness and good Western looks are going to save the world (as well as guarantee box office profits).
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Well I've seen the reviews and comments posted about how good the movie
is and how scary really is the Mumbai slums. There are many things
about this movie which didn't go down really well with me
1. The depiction of slums and there lives(You thought it was real, well the real misery is more then what got depicted however whatever depiction that was done was needless)
2. The movie is just like any other Bollywood movie with lots of twists and turns that looks magical and audience is made to believe that its destiny.
3. Rehman is a true genius, but this is not his best musical work. Try movies like Roja, Bombay or even the latest Delhi 6.
I Appreciate the director for coming and making a movie in India, however India is not only about Slums and Dog.
I would have loved the movie if it hadn't got lost is trying to portray so called the reality of Indian slums.
India is challenge, its a developing economy and unlike any other developing country it has its own problem, but then an outsider trying to come and show this misery to outside world is nothing but a fake attempt.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The most over-rated film in the history of cinema.
A hideously contrived, illogical, unrealistic portrayal of a nation and peoples whose lives are steeped in poverty, made for the consumption and entertainment of the gluttonous morbidity upon which Westernised base morals gorge their stupified mindsets.
The first hour is engaging, fast paced and brilliantly acted by the children, Unfortunately it is done in the manner of a Hollywood action movie, leaving the unpleasant after taste, to those with any sense of discernment, that subsistence and poverty are somehow fun and exciting. However, the emotional bonds between the characters are well defined and at times moving. As they grow up, these bonds remain and the older brother acts as a father figure to his brother and the girl.
It is at this point the plot falls apart as he gets involved in murder, mayhem and the sexual abuse and enslavery of the girl for whom he has spent most of his life protecting beyond his own. He turns against his brother and reinvents himself on the back of an absurd plot line involving a thuggish yet moronic Mafiosa gang.
The unlikely love story then evolves through numerous plot holes regarding the format of the gameshow, the illogical rationale of the host trying to sabotage the 'slumdog' in his quest for the top prize, the impossible logistics of the 'phone a friend' scenario, all culminating in a nauseous 'happy ending' in which we are supposed to feel SO happy for the lucky couple and view the death of the older brother as some kind of twisted victory for good over evil, or love over money.
And yet this film is all about money, consumption and the excess of success. To me the only 'feel good' ending would be for him to have lost the money but got the girl, but for the greed obsessed cinema goer, this wouldn't be enough. He had to have it all, even if by luck, not judgement.
As for the ridiculous dance scene at the end, it was a crass, embarrassing and shameful exploitation of Indian culture dressed up in Hollywodd schmaltz. I came out feeling irritable, annoyed, despising everything about this travesty and the overwhelming human response which somehow is enthused and excited rather than intellectually and morally insulted by this obnoxious filth.
During the whole movie, I was already very annoyed at seeing how what
is the actual everyday struggle of hundreds of children in India, was
treated as a mere video-clip devoid of all genuine emotional
involvement, as a colorful and Hollywood-esquire fantasy for rich and
fat westerners who see India as a huge larger-than-life zoo.
At the end of the movie, when the old "love conquers all" tired cliché oh-so-nicely closes this mushy and soulless frantic mess, the annoyance turned into nausea. People really still buy this crap? Well, I don't.
The children are presented as mere pets. What the movie makers do with this movie, is exactly what the thugs do with the children in the movie: exploiting their cuteness with a such a cynicism that it ends up in pure irresponsible cruelty. Anything for the money. All ethics out.
This is morally revolting.
Danny Boyle once again celebrates (frantic, flashy, noisy, trendy, soulless) style over substance, at the expense of his soul: exploiting human misery as a mere prop, a tool to cash on moviegoers. With high praise at that. What sad, sad times we are living in.
This was the worst movie I've seen in 15 years I have been on this planet, and I've seen some terrible movies in my time; such as, The man who fell to earth starring David Bowie, and Junior, a terrible 'comedy' starring the worst duo in the history of film making (Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny Devito). I recommend to anyone who is considering watching a drama based romantic movie; watch Titanic or the Notebook, both of which are reputably good movies which are not remotely over-rated. So if you are just walking by the video store and see this movie, KEEP WALKING! Unless of course you want to endure the pain of watching the worst Danny Boyle film you will ever see. This film, in my opinion, may be the end of Mr Boyle's career.
Other than the two little ones who play Jamaal and Salim at their
infancy, everything else in this movie is so fake!! Everybody speaks
English!! American tourists who just had their merc stripped off give
out another 100 bucks(are they stupid?)!! On one hand the movie is set
in the dirtiest and most vicious of places in mumbai, on the other hand
it has the noblest of all concepts, the Hollywood version of romance!!
Other than the two toddlers, the rest of the actors playing the two
brothers at different stages in their lives have "Non Resident Indian"
stamped over their faces!! Young wannabe criminals don't look like
Salim does, neither do they carry colts?!! In beggar camp Latika, while
crushing red chillies, wears rubber gloves?!? Well she wasn't exactly
doin the dishes in her kitchen was she??
The movie says that the makers took the worst of India in one hand and Hollywood in another and decided to bridge the gap!! But the gap is just too big for one person or a whole generation of people to bridge!!
I did like the youngest of the actors though, the movie remained palatable till they were around!!
I also hope this movie does something to draw the attention of the world to how people in some parts of the world live in abject poverty, don't know what, if at all anything, that will result in though.
|Page 9 of 104:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|