Slumdog Millionaire
Directed by Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan
Celador Films, 2008
By David Hollands
When a film garners as much critical praise as Slumdog Millionaire has, one assumes watching the movie will be like witnessing the second coming of Christ. When I heard the praise growing, I didn’t join in the chorus; Slumdog Millionaire is directed by Danny Boyle, one of the most overrated filmmakers of all time.
I didn't say Slumdog was bigger than Jesus, or better than Jesus...
The story? Jamal Malik, a young man born and raised in the slums of Mumbai, becomes a contestant on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? in the hopes that the love of his life, Latika, will be watching him. Jamal manages to answer every question correctly, prompting security to suspect that he’s cheating. In police custody, Jamal reveals how he knew the answers: each answer relates to specific moments in his life, which — you guessed it — the audience gets to watch in flashback.
Therein lies a major problem: Slumdog Millionaire is a structural mess. Every time Jamal answers a question, the audience is whisked back to the corresponding life event. Only a few of the flashbacks are devoted to moving the story forward. Most serve the function of explaining in utterly contrived fashion how Jamal knew the answers. Jamal and his brother develop an animosity toward each other, and Jamal meets Latika, which is certainly important story-wise. For a good hour or so, however, the characters don’t develop! In fact, Jamal NEVER develops. His arc is incredibly limited, and a drag to experience. Jamal’s brother Salim should have been the protagonist; his arc of corruption and eventual redemption is the more interesting story.
Another problem: Slumdog Millionaire has a disastrous moral cop-out as its conclusion. (Those bothered by spoilers should steer clear.) To absolutely no one’s surprise, Jamal is one question away from the grand prize. Preceding this moment, money and greed are treated in the film as the roots of all evil. Jamal is not interested in money, only in being with Latika. Fine… but then why is the film’s climax constructed around whether or not Jamal will get the money? Is money suddenly not evil because the “good” characters have it now? If Slumdog Millionaire had any balls whatsoever, Jamal would not have won. His love for Latika should have been enough. The movie’s message is mixed, to say the least.
How about the theme? Here it is: destiny. That’s. It. Seriously! The movie had me sitting through all sorts of annoying visual and aural razzamatazz for two hours, and all it had to say is that our lives are controlled by destiny? Bullshit. Boring and uninteresting bullshit, no less.
As for Mr. Boyle’s much-lauded direction, it seems he is perfectly content with shaking and tilting his camera all over the place, no matter what the scene. A single shot hardly ever lasts on the screen for more than two seconds. That’s. Annoying. Mr. Artiste Boyle also seems to think his audience is composed of complete morons. During the last act, there were flashbacks to scenes and moments that had played not five minutes earlier! At one point, our genius director cuts to a shot of Latika when Jamal speaks of her, just in case we dullards had forgotten who she was.
All you need is love. But 20 million rupees never hurt anyone.
More of the bad: a loud, constantly blaring soundtrack that almost made me go deaf; the crappiest cinematography in ages (digitally manipulated straight to hell — seriously, the movie looks like neon vomit); and let’s not forget the egregious dance number that closes the film. What is that even doing in a movie that features child mutilation, child prostitution, murder, and torture? It frightens me that the violence, while pretty visceral and disturbing in some moments, ultimately becomes pretty lightweight and unimportant by the film’s conclusion. That lacks maturity. I think it’s disgusting to feature such violence in a film that’s ultimately a dopey and lighthearted romance.
Some good stuff: an amazing musical score, great performances, and the knowledge that it will all be over at some point.
In a wonderful year for cinema that saw so many amazing, challenging films, the fact that this one seems to be the biggest critical darling is disturbing on a level even I cannot imagine. If this boring, predictable, clichéd, and truly dumb movie wins Best Picture, cinema will be in great danger of losing its soul.
I completely agree. The whole thing came across to me as incredibly contrived, passively (every major plot point is telegraphed about an hour in advance) and overblown. At one point in the film, during Salim’s trasnformation, I had a flash where I was suddenly reminded of a scene from City of God. Which only reminded me the degree to which this overblown piece of crap pales in comparison to that film. There was no tension here, no emotional attachment to the protagonist, and a lot of gaps in character logic (for one thing, why he was accused of cheating in the first place is never really explained).
I did enjoy the music though.
There are a lot of points I disagree with here (all delivered with a little bit of eye-rolling hyperbole), but perhaps the point pint that stands out the most to me is the accusation of the film’s theme of “destiny” being “bullshit.”
Complaining that this movie’s theme is saying our lives are controlled by destiny, makes me wonder if maybe you missed the fact that this movie isn’t trying to say anything, so much as it is intent on being an old-fashioned fairy tale about true love and destiny (something it broadcats you about in the first minute). In other words, it’s not concerned about aruging OUR lives are controlled by destiny, but that THESE lives (fairy tale fake ones at that) are.
Movies like REVOLUTIONARY ROAD (for example) are about making you feel and think (theme wise) something. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is about just making you feel, and go along with the fact that it so joyously wears its heart on its sleeve.
That being said, one could certainly quibble about how the hell a movie that has nothing to say (thematically anyway), and is really about the visceral and emotional experience of watching it, is garnering such critical love over “heavier” films…
All that aside though, serious kudos for using “razzamtazz” in your review. I’m not entirely sure I know what that even is, but I know I like it.
Yes. Finally some sanity. Thank you.
Scenes of poverty and squalour may appear romantic to Westerners and to our snooty elite but for us ordinary Indians they are nothing new. They are an everyday reality. However, one wonders what sort of mind can find such images aesthetically pleasing. Party-hopping socialites (for example, Shobhaa De after all her bombast of “enough is enough” after the Mumbai attack, went and watched a pirated copy!) who are distanced from such reality may find this film an “eye-opener” but for us it IS poverty-porn. It IS slum-tourism. The music/soundtrack and the technical quality of the film is excellent; but, overall, “Slumdog Millionaire” is unrealistic & overrated because:
1) The director seems to RELISH showing violence. Some of it (like the police-torture) is quite needless. And why was the boy arrested in the first place? On what charge? Was it realistic?
2) How can a boy growing up in slums speak such accented English? Even if one assumes that the language he actually uses to communicate with the game-show host and the police officer is Hindi (granting the director the creative license to use a language better suited for international audiences), there are 2 instances where it is stretched too far: (a) when the boy becomes a ‘guide’ for foreign tourists at the Taj Mahal & (b) when he becomes a substitute-operator at the call-centre.
3) When the boy uses his ‘lifeline’ during the game-show, his friend discovers that she has forgotten her mobile and has to run back for it. This is plain Bollywood masala! Did the director HAVE to make it so melodramatic?
4) How did the boy know who invented the revolver just by watching his brother use it?
How does his friend know about Benjamin Franklin (something which many Americans themselves don’t know!)?
5) “Darshan Do Ghanshyam” is NOT written by Surdas. It is written by Gopal Singh Nepali for the movie Narsi Bhagat (1957). This song is also credited as traditional and originally written by 15th century poet Narsi Mehta, whose life that film is based on.
6) After winning the game-show, the boy sits on the railway platform and nobody recognizes him! Considering the popularity of the show, is that realistic?
7) Two glaring omissions: To get invited to the show one has to answer several GK questions over phone or Internet. Even after making it to the show, a contestant can reach the hot-seat only after qualifying through “fastest finger first”. All this is conveniently forgotten in the film.
8) And of course the greatest flaw in the storyline: programmes like ‘Kaun Banega Crorepati’ and ‘Who Wants To Be A Millionaire’ are NOT telecast live. As a result the entire structure of the film becomes unrealistic. For a film that boasts of being realistic such a flaw cannot be overlooked.
The Academy will lose its credibility if it gives this film the Best Picture/Director awards.
i thaught it was not too bad, decent pass time but the film was a bit too long. they could have added more drama to it and it did seem too focused on one thing at times. i would rate it 6.5 outa 10, mainly because of its soundtrack though.. and i hate the way they started speaking english… it would have been alot better if they stuck to hindi, enlish didnt suit them
Sheesh, settle down over there.
I can’t disagree with a lot of the points that are brought up here — the English-speaking thing was odd, I thought, and a couple of other minor things, but those don’t bother me too much.
The biggest problem I had with it was Salim’s about-face turn around at the end. SPOILER — I have a hard time believing that a boy who learns how to murder and rape at 13 years of age who then goes into a gang for the next few years would suddenly not only have a crisis of conscience, but choose to repent for his sins by essentially committing suicide. Not very believable. I also totally agree about the film lacking a bit of testicular fortitude when it came to the ending. I think he should have gotten the last question wrong as well; and you’re right about that mixed money vs love message.
As for some other things; the direction didn’t bother me at all, though it could have been better. It had a shaky kind of feel to it, but nothing that made it difficult for me to tell what was going on (I’m looking at YOU, Bourne Supremacy/Ultimatum!!). I liked the cinematography, I thought it provided some really interesting shots of India and provided excellent background and visual contexts. And the structure of the story worked fine for me. I like a little bit of jumping around, as long as it doesn’t make things hard to understand (by the same token, I like Pulp Fiction’s structural style). It’s nonlinear, and I find that a nice change from most films.
And the musical number at the end was awesome. It made me smile. I sort of took it as a tribute, or at least a nod and a wink to Bollywood and Indian cinema; and I didn’t think it was overdone.
To Sambit: I don’t think you know how the Academy works. They’re not going to lose one bit of credibility if Slumdog wins. There are hundreds of actors/directors/producers and other industry people who vote on each category. So if Slumdog wins, it’s because a lot of knowledgeable and successful movie industry people like it.
I’ve seen better films this year, that’s for sure…Gran Torino and Benjamin Button come to mind. Perhaps the Wrestler. But I still enjoyed Slumdog and don’t think that cinema is in any danger of “losing its soul” if it wins.
I totally agree with David Hollands that this is trite nonsense of the highest order and I can’t believe the hype around the film. Every 3 minutes there is an aural assault of megolithic proportions as the (often) inappropriate soundtrack blares forth – usually out of context with the scene being viewed.
As for them falling of the train at the TajMahal – I laughed out loud at the crassness and clumsiness and continued to do so several times as disbelief was suspended yet again.
Utter rubbish!
Thanks so much for the heads-up on the volume problem. I suffer from a chronic illness that not only makes me more sensitive to high decibel levels but is aggravated by exposure to them: loud music affects me the same way sitting next to a jack hammer would. I’m so grateful to know this film might be better skipped or viewed at home, where I own the volume control!
I agree. Worst movie I have ever seen.
Thank god.
Spot on with your review.
After watching electrocution torture, a child gets its eyes BURNED OUT and another child nearly fall to his death from a moving train because his was starving and trying to get food – they put a big colorful choreographed dance at the end. I liken it to Laurel and Hardy popping up in Schindler’s List with a bit of slap stick comedy, it was totally dishonest to the narrative. I know they were bollywooding it with the dance which would be fine if woven into the films tone better, but that was simply bad taste.
That point along with:
the marketing of “feel good film of the year” (!!??)
the “disastrous moral cop-out as its conclusion”
Staying up till 5am to have the Oscars disappoint
Dev Patels character looking like he is having a stroke through the entire film with zero character development
And Dev Patel repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly shouting “Latikaaa!” in the train station
makes this one film I will happily never see again.
Latika seemed to be trying to run away from her awful like, not specifically towards Jamal. And he seemed obsessed with this woman he hardly knew and I personally took this obsession as Jamal trying to find an escape from his equally awful life. This lack of active objectives from the characters destroyed any love story that may have been intended. This is the main reason I was not interested in their journey nor did I particularly care if they found each other.
Someone earlier used the words “poverty-porn” and “slum-tourism” – I agree and I think It’s cheap and dumb and didn’t deserve all the Oscars.
Haters. You can’t love a movie for what it is. You try directing a movie and see how it will turn out. Like paintings, movies are a work of art and some people like it while others don’t. Everyone has a different taste in what they like and now here it is; your criticism saying how this movie was bad. That is only an opinion and not a fact. It’s always easier to find negative side of anything. Why don’t you go to an art museum and start finding negative aspects about every piece of art. No one will care in the end. I mean you state how bad this movie is but so what? Your analysis won’t change anything. If you didn’t like it then too bad for you.
Peterson, you better call Roger Ebert and tell him that’s he’s wasted his life. I’m sure he’ll be shocked to hear that he’s only been saying opinions and that opinions don’t matter.
Art has a million different purposes: one of them is to be discussed and debated. It’s why people write reviews, become academics, and argue over a bottle of wine. No, it doesn’t do anything or change anything, but neither does wearing pants or commenting on a website. Ninety percent of the shit we do is pointless when you break it down.
One of the things I want this site to be is a place where people go, “What the hell is up with people’s taste?” MONDO will always be a haven for haters.
this film is too conscience-orientated, I don’t think wanting to be a better human-being is the only reason why people go to the cinemas, there are many reasons why we go to the cinemas, sometimes, we just enjoy watching a Will smith killing an optapus alien or a Harry meets Sally. But films like this one (8 Oscars awards) makes people very guilty for preferring something over conscience-orientated films…. but on the other side, if a film about homosexuality (broke-back mountains) is able to gain international attention, then I see why not the slumdog teens shouldn’t, as people are all equal isn’t it? this is a controversial film, I guess all controversial films has a bold message as its nature, so there isn’t much to say. 1 good thing about this film I see is that it could be a good competition starter for all the other big time film-makers out there to think about something to beat for the next oscars.
I’m not sure I buy the “poverty-porn” accusation. I don’t believe the movie relishes (and asks the audience to do so) in the poverty displayed. Yes, it the poverty of India glamorized slightly? Sure. But this is clearly a film more concerned with telling a fairy tale about destiny and true love than it is a hard-hitting expose of the conditions of slums in India. The slum element is a narrative means to an end, not the end itself. Also, can it really be “poverty porn” when a good chunk of the movie is about escaping that poverty?
I also find it amusing that given the obvious influence of Charles Dickens apparent in SLUMDOG, that nobody is retroactively going back to accuse Dickens of pornographiying poverty, or – hell – why not go after OLIVER! while you’re at it.
it took me too long to find fellow haters! i can’t help but agree with 98% of the reviews on this site, this movie sucks! so overdone and overrated it’s unbelievable. this movie made me want to crawl out of my skin. the cinematograpghy was a like a bad acid trip, the characters and actors were so bland that trying to relate or have any sympathy towards them was nearly impossible (in fact i was hoping that the police would go too far and kill the kid and that the chick would jump in front of a train!), and the soundtrack was like fingernails on a blackboard. i can totaly appreciate non linear story lines but when you have to sit through a complete bs recap as to how this douche bag knew every answer it turned what could’ve been a mediocre film into one of the worst films ever created. i’ve stepped in more creative and inspiring things while walking my dogs!