Slumdog Millionaire

This is a somewhat predictable but lovely film which combines an honest look at poverty in India with one of the best love stories in recent years.

Jamal who wants to find his long lost love Latika, goes on a game show called "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire". After he's suspected of cheating, he's interrogated and he starts to explain how he knew all the answers.

To say that this is expertly shot would be an understatement. It would be nearly impossible for another movie to win "Best Picture" over it. Every shot is amazing and not a single one seems worse than the last.

The clever structure of the film uses the backstory to explain how he knew each of the answers to show what life is like for much of India's population. Even some of the more disturbing things that go on are detailed very well in the movie.

The actors all did a great job. Especially the younger cast which is rather surprising considering that this is their first time acting for many of them. They acted well and I was sold in the first 20 minutes.

Unfortunately, the film's strength falters near the end. Blaming plot contrivances on "fate" seemed lazy and the happy ending felt a bit hollow to me. But besides this, this is still a powerful and moving film which will entertain you all throughout it.

This is a great movie. It has great acting and it was expertly shot. The movie details violence well and it's handled greatly too. This is Danny Boyle's best movie since Sunshine and Trainspotting.

Bless us all, Danny Boyle is in his prime. His "Sunshine" was lifeatleringly effective for me. He does things with a camera that are new, effective. He does better than others in providing a story foundation that fits the cinematic effects. He's visually clever. Its all more than enough for me.

Here, he appeases audiences too much for my taste in building a happy ending that has you walking out actually believing that you have seen a happy romance, worthy of Bollywood dance fantasy. This, I suppose is his answer to those who were confused by "Sunshine"s failure to support a common genre. Alas, a shame.

But the cinematic bits are more than enough.

Quite apart from the romance, what we have here is a (unique I think) synthesis of the film (here a TeeVee show) within that affects the film without plus a similar device of memory within. Here it is both a recall and a storytelling. The earlier in life we go, the more hectic and jagged the visions. It starts with one of the three "City of God" types of choppy editing and slowly bleeds into a normally paced picture. But that "City of God" stuff was mostly just in camera motion, and intended to contrast with the other two "personalities."

Here it is in the camera, in the movement of the actors and deeply in the editing. Its integrated and cinematic. Its brilliant. I think that is because of the way Boyle has digested the results of Dogma 95. There was a lot of pretentious stuff in that manifesto, but its core and ultimately its effect has been the opposite of the intended. The capture of the natural to be true has to involve intrusive craft, not lack of craft. Boyle, without notice has picked up Dogma graduates for his crew, more this time than usual.

The beginning of this film is true, powerful, full of life, energy. It is real. As it progresses and our hero enters and is accepted into TeeVee land it becomes more romantic and unreal, more like a Bollywood romance. It is more powerful than any from Bollywood because we assume it to be real from the beginning. Clever.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

I thought the best part of this movie was the photography. Check this film out on Blu-Ray, if you have the opportunity: it's magnificent-looking. They even make slums look beautiful! I'm glad it won the Oscar for cinematography. Scene after scene is gorgeous.

Story-wise, it's okay; good, but nothing super. For the first half of the film, it reminded me of "City Of God," about the homeless kids in Brazil, but that film had far more violent kids. This one mainly had kids as pranksters and then victims of some sicko adult who wants to use them to make money.

The story will be fun for those who used to be hooked on the "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" quiz show, but the host here in this Indian version is no lovable Regis Philbin. You won't like him.

Almost all of the story is told in flashback, so be prepared for that. It's one of those stories where all the little pieces fit together in the end to explain why things happened in the start of the film.

I wouldn't have voted for this as the Best Picture Of The Year but it is entertaining and a feast for the eyes.

This is an extraordinary film. From the original concept of the novel on which it is based (Q&A by Vikas Swarup), the screenplay by Simon Beaufoy (Full Monty) but especially the masterful creation and direction of the film by Danny Boyle. From the opening moments until the final scene, the audience was fully engaged. I was completely lost in the world that Danny Boyle created. This is not a story that has been told and retold, hashed and rehashed. It is fresh and engaging - all at once quickly moving, romantic, violent, culturally insightful, desperate and slightly fantastic. There are some comic elements to the film but to describe it as a "comedy" seems inappropriate. The film was shot on location in India, mostly in Mumbai. Slumdog Millionaire is yet another testament to depth and range of Boyle's artistic talent who has directed such diverse films as Shallow Grave, Trainspotting, 28 Days Later and Sunshine.

I saw the film on at the 2008 Telluride Film Festival as a "sneak preview." The film was introduced by Boyle who said that the official opening of the film would be the next weekend at the Toronto Film Festival. He also said that there may be some final tweaking of the film prior to Toronto.

In the discussion after the film Boyle strongly recommended three Indian made films: Satya, Company and Black Friday. He described each as superb. Boyle also stated that a portion of the Slumdog Millionaire was shot with a Canon EOS still camera, especially around the Taj Mahal, rather than a proper movie camera which creates unwanted attention while filming at popular tourist locations in India.

8.2

This film came to the UK on a wave of Oscar hype and critical praise and I was looking forward to see it even though the reasons "why" it was good seemed a bit vague to me. On one hand it seems to be set in the gritty poverty of India, with descriptions of some very unpleasant scenes but then, on the other hand it was described as being uplifting and the feel-good movie of the year. I was curious how this conflicting information resolves itself within one film without off-balancing it.

The overall sweep of the film is very much a rag-to-riches story with love being the real heart of the film even if "money" (or a game-show for money) is the narrative driver and essentially it is modern day fairytale. In this regard it is an excellent film because you are engaged throughout, are totally on the side of the main characters and ultimately the viewer would give anything if they could only end the film happily. In this way it is uplifting and (ultimately) a really cheering film that is worth seeing with an audience because it is one of those things that unites an audience with a common feeling of cheer and goodwill. The method of delivery really helps the plot work because it is colourful, frantic and stylish.

I really enjoyed the fragmented time structure that uses the re-watching of the Millionaire questions in the police station as a trigger for flashbacks. This means we are gripped by several threads/times rather than it being a straight flow. It is not an amazingly unique device but the manner of it being put together prevents it ever being clumsy or obvious by how it transitions from one time to the other. Speaking of delivery and style, the film is understandably an Oscar contender generally thanks to its upbeat nature (after darker material last year and the current downturn in the world, Oscar probably will look for some feel-good stuff) but the areas I think it stands a great chance are those of cinematography, editing and direction. I say this because visually the film is a treat. It captures the colour of India with great camera work that puts us right in the scene. An example is the early chase through the slum, with a frantic camera, plenty of colour (in terms of palate, places and people) and a great visual style with the sun hitting the camera from above as it moves and other effective devices. With this much movement in the camera throughout the film, the editing is key in making these scenes work and it is excellent throughout – even putting the subtitles in a stylish and arresting fashion which helped sell the use of Hindi but does also match the style of the film more than standard text would have. As director Boyle delivers on all this and his use of music is great as well. It does feel like we have the grit and style of City of God but yet also the warm uplifting story of the very best the "underdog" genre can provide.

That it achieves this is a testament to how well the film is delivered because it does have to overcome the fact that the majority of the film presents us with a terrible world of poverty and suffering and then gradually pulls the main characters out of it. This is a problem that the delivery covers but ultimately the viewer is left with some fairly harrowing realities that haven't gone away by the end of the film. I totally understand those who love the film unquestioningly but I do agree with those that take pause on this issue and note that it is an aspect of the film that really doesn't stand up in the cold light of day. You see, it is gritty and it is unpleasant and, although not based on a true story, this is a reality in our world and to see so much of it in a film that ultimately leaves you feeling good about life and happy that everything worked out alright is not a mix that sat particularly well with me. It isn't helped by the dance number over the end credits, which involved lots of people and pushed the "isn't everything great" idea more than the proper conclusion of the story did. I didn't like this part of the credits for this reason and also it would have been nice to see a film based in India that didn't feel it had to "do" Bollywood.

The cast mostly play to the "fairytale" side of the film more than the grit, although the young children are very impressive in the first sections of the story. Patel took a minute to grow on me but, although not the most charismatic of performers, he is really steady as the underdog who is driven. Kapoor is a great villain, driven by a hate that says a lot about the class system in place. Pinto is stunning and has a much stronger presence than Patel. Khan works the investigation scenes well, which was important as these are where the story is told from. There are no real weak links in the performances – the fairy-tale nature of the tale means everyone has to focus on that side of it but they are still good.

The film is not as perfect as you will hear but it is still very good at what it does. It is a wonderfully stylish and slick romantic fairytale that is cheering and uplifting but of course this does give the slight problem that it is a stylish, slick and uplifting film that features horribly real images of cruelty and poverty. It doesn't manage to reconcile this but it is strong enough to make you ignore this for the vast majority of the time, leaving you tense, hopeful and weepy.