# Slumdog Millionaire



## xbow's sis (Jan 7, 2009)

Saw this last night on a preview showing at the local fleapit, new movie from Danny Boyle, he of the trainspotting, shallow grave etc. Seriously good film, strongly recommended, really well structured, great characters, story and felt like I had actually experienced the real india by the end of it. Take a chance, you wont be disappointed.


----------



## Lea (Jan 7, 2009)

Going to watch this at the Barbican tomorrow. Looking forward to it. The scenery looks really interesting.


----------



## TitanSound (Jan 7, 2009)

Probably going to see this on Friday, sounds good!


----------



## scifisam (Jan 7, 2009)

Lea said:


> Going to watch this at the Barbican tomorrow. Looking forward to it. The scenery looks really interesting.



I can't see that on the Barbican website - it says it starts on Friday (I've been looking for a showing tomorrow too).


----------



## Lea (Jan 7, 2009)

scifisam said:


> I can't see that on the Barbican website - it says it starts on Friday (I've been looking for a showing tomorrow too).



Sorry I meant Friday.


----------



## Hellsbells (Jan 7, 2009)

i want to see this too, but other than Barbican, I can't seem to find hardly any cinemas showing it. Managed to find a showing in Holloway road Odeon, but it says it's only on Tuesday evenings 

Does anyone know where else this movie is on at? 
Or a good website that will tell me this info...


----------



## Lea (Jan 7, 2009)

Hellsbells said:


> i want to see this too, but other than Barbican, I can't seem to find hardly any cinemas showing it. Managed to find a showing in Holloway road Odeon, but it says it's only on Tuesday evenings
> 
> Does anyone know where else this movie is on at?
> Or a good website that will tell me this info...



I think that it's showing from Friday at the Odeon Covent Garden.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 7, 2009)

Oooh, a film about India made by Danny Boyle.

Definitely up for that!


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 7, 2009)

its an adaption of the book Q & A by Vikas Swarup which is great too


----------



## brix (Jan 7, 2009)

I actually managed to get one of those Ritzy members tickets to see this.  I was beginning to think those tickets were some kind of myth - have never managed to get one before.


Anyway, it was really excellent and the actors who play the brothers (all of them) are great, but the trailer I saw today made it look very 'feel good' whereas parts of it I found quite hard to watch.  I'm thinking particularly of the 'eyes'.  Those that have seen it will know what I mean.  That haunts me...


----------



## newbie (Jan 7, 2009)

they repeated the radio version for Book at Bedtime last week. Great story.


----------



## big eejit (Jan 7, 2009)

I saw a preview at the weekend. Brilliant film. Rollicking good Bollywood storyline with hard edge from Danny Boyle - surprisingly hard in places. But great fun overall.


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 7, 2009)

ruffneck23 said:


> its an adaption of the book Q & A by Vikas Swarup which is great too



Ah.  I thought it might be that.    

But if I've read the book am I likely to enjoy the film......


----------



## _float_ (Jan 7, 2009)

Hellsbells said:


> i want to see this too, but other than Barbican, I can't seem to find hardly any cinemas showing it. Managed to find a showing in Holloway road Odeon, but it says it's only on Tuesday evenings
> 
> Does anyone know where else this movie is on at?
> Or a good website that will tell me this info...



Time Out (London), film section:
http://www.timeout.com/film/


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 7, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Ah.  I thought it might be that.
> 
> But if I've read the book am I likely to enjoy the film......



if you read the book you will be watching a film that is not the book.

I don't mean that lightly.

Both are equally admirable.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jan 7, 2009)

Isaw this a couple of weeks ago in Houston, one of the main screens at a busy mutiplex and it was a full house. Good film. Don't do what one friend did and run out before the closing titles....


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 7, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> if you read the book you will be watching a film that is not the book.
> 
> I don't mean that lightly.
> 
> Both are equally admirable.



il keep that in mind cheers


----------



## paolo (Jan 8, 2009)

This is on my list too... Always up for a bit of Danny Boyle, and this sounds great.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 8, 2009)

im 1/2 way through it , just stopped to make dinner , im loving it


----------



## ooo (Jan 8, 2009)

One of the best films I've seen in recent years.  Excellent storytelling.  Be prepared for laughs and tears.
Love it!


----------



## ooo (Jan 8, 2009)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Isaw this a couple of weeks ago in Houston, one of the main screens at a busy mutiplex and it was a full house. Good film. Don't do what one friend did and run out before* the closing titles*....



Yes


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jan 8, 2009)

BBC London was giving it a good review today on the radio.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 8, 2009)

Hellsbells said:


> i want to see this too, but other than Barbican, I can't seem to find hardly any cinemas showing it. Managed to find a showing in Holloway road Odeon, but it says it's only on Tuesday evenings
> 
> Does anyone know where else this movie is on at?
> Or a good website that will tell me this info...



It's on at all the cinemas near me - Mile End Genesis, Stratford Picture House, Rich Mix. But you have to look for next week's films, as their week starts on Friday.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 8, 2009)

just finished it ,its ace


----------



## ooo (Jan 8, 2009)

How could you pause it for dinner?!


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 8, 2009)

that would be telling


----------



## 43mhz (Jan 9, 2009)

Watched this last night and really enjoyed it.. the boy from Skins done good
I also paused it half way through to make dinner


----------



## linerider (Jan 9, 2009)

I'm watching it at the Ritzy tonight.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 9, 2009)

Really want to see this. No idea where or when though.


----------



## Scaggs (Jan 9, 2009)

Saw it tonight and it wasn't what I was expecting at all, we loved it!


----------



## Scaggs (Jan 9, 2009)

Marius said:


> Really want to see this. No idea where or when though.



I was hoping it might have been on at the Chapter in Cardiff but I had to get a torrent in the end.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 9, 2009)

There were advanced screenings around Cardiff today but its not released yet i think.


----------



## tastebud (Jan 9, 2009)

I loved it. I just bought the soundtrack.


----------



## Scaggs (Jan 10, 2009)

Marius said:


> There were advanced screenings around Cardiff today but its not released yet i think.



I'll keep an eye out for it. I'm not too keen on the cinema but I'd love to see this again on a big screen.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 10, 2009)

I'm hoping this will be the in flight movie on saturday


----------



## T & P (Jan 10, 2009)

Saw it at the Ritzy tonight as well. Bloody brilliant. Gripping, intense and well written.

Some hard parts though- not sure I agree with the promotional posters' depiction of it as a 'feel-good' movie. I could barely watch at times... the whole thing with the children and the orphanage place... Christ. Still fucking brilliant and unmissable though.



tastebud said:


> I loved it. I just bought the soundtrack.


 Is it out already then? The film hadn't finished yet and Ms. T&P was telling me 'we need to get us a copy of the soundtrack'...


----------



## Giles (Jan 10, 2009)

Watched this last night at the Tricycle Cinema in Kilburn.

Really enjoyed it - its upbeat, but doesn't pull its punches in its depiction of life in Mumbai for the poor.

Giles..


----------



## editor (Jan 10, 2009)

What a great film. Loved it.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 10, 2009)

Fantastic Film.


Jsut got back from seeing this. Blodoy fantastic.  Completley Gripping and an emoational rollercoaster with great cinematography and an even better sound track!

It's on at the Acton View BTW for those in West London (closest tubes: Park Royal and Hanger Lane)


----------



## Clint Iguana (Jan 11, 2009)

Scaggs said:


> I was hoping it might have been on at the Chapter in Cardiff but I had to get a torrent in the end.




It is on in Showcase, Nantgarw


----------



## Miss Potter (Jan 11, 2009)

T & P said:


> not sure I agree with the promotional posters' depiction of it as a 'feel-good' movie. '



I said that to Mr Potter when we came out of the cinema this afternoon. Thought the film was fabulous though, best thing I've seen at the pictures for ages.


----------



## brix (Jan 11, 2009)

Miss Potter said:


> I said that to Mr Potter when we came out of the cinema this afternoon. Thought the film was fabulous though, best thing I've seen at the pictures for ages.




I didn't see the interview but my friend said she saw Danny Boyle interviewed by Mark Kermode, and Mark asked him about the discrepancy between the film and the way it was being marketed.  She said he replied that the marketing was out of his hands, and also implied that he wasn't that happy about it.

I'm glad I hadn't seen the advertising before I saw the film.  I would have been horribly unprepared for the orphanage scenes.


----------



## metalguru (Jan 11, 2009)

Loved it.

Definitely worth seeing on the big screen rather than waiting for the DVD (or erm ...downloading - as above)


----------



## Ms T (Jan 11, 2009)

Another "loved it" from me and the hendo.


----------



## moomoo (Jan 11, 2009)

The teen and I are hoping to go and see this this week.  Very much looking forward to it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 11, 2009)

Absolutely cracking film.  Great story, acting, cinematography, soundtrack, pretty much everything. The kids were just bloody superb.



brix said:


> I didn't see the interview but my friend said she saw Danny Boyle interviewed by Mark Kermode, and Mark asked him about the discrepancy between the film and the way it was being marketed.  She said he replied that the marketing was out of his hands, and also implied that he wasn't that happy about it.
> 
> I'm glad I hadn't seen the advertising before I saw the film.  I would have been horribly unprepared for the orphanage scenes.



The marketing is utterly stupid and bloody annoying. But I can't say more without spoiling it for those who aint seen it.  So...




Spoiler: the ending



By calling it the 'feelgood hit of the year' it blatantly gives away the ending. After that first half, the only possible way for it to be 'feelgood' was to have just the ending it did. I thought he might blow the last question (which seemed a bit easy to me, tho I guess the Three Musketeers wasn't that big in India), seeing as he'd become a millionaire in his heart anyway, but it was always likely he'd get the girl and the cash.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 12, 2009)

Excellent film.

I watched this and Seven Pounds this weekend, both good.


----------



## Hellsbells (Jan 12, 2009)

Saw this yesterday and have to say, it's the best film i've seen in years. It's very rare that i don't lose interest half way through a film, but that was just excellent the entire way through. I'd go and see it again tomorow, given half the chance. 
I want to read the book now


----------



## Ms T (Jan 12, 2009)

moomoo said:


> The teen and I are hoping to go and see this this week.  Very much looking forward to it.



I've lost track of the teen's age, but be aware that there are some quite disturbing and violent scenes - it's not really the feel-good film of the advertisements.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 12, 2009)

To not like this film you'd have to be some kind of shrivelled-up, heartless bag of misery. The mixture of over-the-top romantic storyline and realism in the slums works much better than you'd think, and there's no attempt to either patronise or glamorise the desperately poor (and I've seen both in films before). 
Another modern classic from Danny Boyle I'd say.


----------



## moomoo (Jan 12, 2009)

Ms T said:


> I've lost track of the teen's age, but be aware that there are some quite disturbing and violent scenes - it's not really the feel-good film of the advertisements.



She's 16.  I think she'll be fine.  I'm a bit worried about me now though... 

Is it upsetting?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 12, 2009)

nahh at 16 she will be ok


----------



## Ms T (Jan 12, 2009)

moomoo said:


> She's 16.  I think she'll be fine.  I'm a bit worried about me now though...
> 
> Is it upsetting?



I found some of it upsetting, yes.


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2009)

I think your average 16 year old would have seen far far worse. It's a magnificent film.


----------



## moomoo (Jan 12, 2009)

Ms T said:


> I found some of it upsetting, yes.



Thanks for the warning.  I'll take some tissues.   I'm really looking forward to this.


----------



## bonjour (Jan 12, 2009)

Just watched it this morning, after my sister recommended after she had seen it. With so much praise of this film+awards, I was expecting something of a high standard and I'm just amazed how much it's exceeded that.


----------



## moomoo (Jan 12, 2009)

It blew us away!  Fantastic film - thoroughly recommend it.


----------



## Zeppo (Jan 12, 2009)

I saw the film Sunday. Brilliant, I had tears at the end but I am sentimental.
Feel good? I felt great - film of the year.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 13, 2009)

Surprisingly this was showing in Swansea on Friday. We went to see and absolutely loved it!  

What Brainaddict said


----------



## Kanda (Jan 13, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Surprisingly this was showing in Swansea on Friday. We went to see and absolutely loved it!
> 
> What Brainaddict said



Why is that suprising? It's on general release


----------



## Lea (Jan 13, 2009)

Kanda said:


> Why is that suprising? It's on general release



Isn't it on limited release though?


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2009)

as it's just won umpteen awards, I'd have thought it was getting a very wide release now, even if it hadn't done before


----------



## Kanda (Jan 13, 2009)

Lea said:


> Isn't it on limited release though?



It had a limited release in November 2008 in the States. Thought it was on general release here. *runs off to check*

Checked with Chan 4 friend, was released to 324 cinemas last Friday. Took £1.7m over the weekend, 2nd highest grossing film for the weekend after Role Models.


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2009)

bloody ITN news gave away the ending in its report in the Golden Globes last night.  Stupid sods, it was the only bit that might not have gone the way I was sure it was going to (iyswim), and they go and tell everyone what happens!


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jan 13, 2009)

another fine toilet scene,  glad to hear MIA's music in the soundtrack hope she get's better known. Agree, it's a winner of a film.  Don't think plot giveaways are a problem.  It was kinda obvious after half hour what was going to happen.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 13, 2009)

really?

I thought the title GAVE IT AWAY!!!!


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2009)

DJWrongspeed said:


> It was kinda obvious after half hour what was going to happen.



well it is if its described as a 'feelgood movie' and the news tells you what happens...

And are you always so literal Kanda?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 14, 2009)

Lea said:


> Isn't it on limited release though?



Marius couldn't find it in his part of Wales, the same day. I thought it was on limited release too.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 14, 2009)

Released in 324 out of roughly 775 cinemas in the UK


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2009)

christ, are there really only 775 cinemas left in the uk?  How sad.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 14, 2009)

belboid said:


> christ, are there really only 775 cinemas left in the uk?  How sad.



According to CH4 PR person I just spoke to.

E2A: Approx 1067 towns in England, that's not that bad a number


----------



## teuchter (Jan 15, 2009)

Saw this this evening and thought it was very good. A terribly cheesy ending but they just about get away with it on account of the rest of the film being so good.

I enjoyed the bit where there was a caller from Kingussie in the call centre having been there nearly meeting Bono just a couple of weeks ago; this however will be entirely irrelevant to anyone else so please ignore this sentence.


----------



## foo (Jan 15, 2009)

i saw Danny Baker being interviewed by whassisface (Culture Show) and i'm puzzled. i read a book last year which was exactly this story. i can't remember the sodding book, and no one seems to refer to it.

does anyone know what i'm on about?


----------



## Kanda (Jan 15, 2009)

Book is called Q&A

It's named in the credits.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jan 15, 2009)

I think you probably mean Danny Boyle, foo   


Unless you really did see Danny Baker interviewed, in which case it's not surprising that you're confused, dear. 





((((((((((( foo  )))))))))))))


----------



## foo (Jan 15, 2009)

ah brilliant, thanks Kanda 

thought i was going mad (madder)


----------



## foo (Jan 15, 2009)

sheothebudworths said:


> I think you probably mean Danny Boyle, foo
> 
> 
> Unless you really did see Danny Baker interviewed, in which case it's not surprising that you're confused, dear.
> ...



oh god  i've done it again. i always call him Danny Baker, and i do know the difference - honest!

trust you to fuckin notice sheo.


----------



## metalguru (Jan 15, 2009)

Danny Baker is quite famous enough already - don't want him getting extra credit  for something he didn't do.


----------



## bigbry (Jan 15, 2009)

Hellsbells said:


> Saw this yesterday and have to say, it's the best film i've seen in years. It's very rare that i don't lose interest half way through a film, but that was just excellent the entire way through. I'd go and see it again tomorow, given half the chance.
> I want to read the book now



I read the book when it first came out in paperback.  My other half booght it for me to take on holiday.  I struggled to get into it in the first chapter but stuck at it as I didn't want to tell 'she who must be obeyed' that it was n't any good.  Glad I stuck at it 'cos after that I couldn't put it down.  Absolutely brilliant read.

Hoping to go and see the film next week.

eta - the books called Q & A by Vikas Swarup .


----------



## middle C (Jan 15, 2009)

it is a mighty good film.


----------



## tastebud (Jan 16, 2009)

the soundtrack has been despatched to me - yay


----------



## bigbry (Jan 16, 2009)

bigbry said:


> I read the book when it first came out in paperback.  My other half booght it for me to take on holiday.  I struggled to get into it in the first chapter but stuck at it as I didn't want to tell 'she who must be obeyed' that it was n't any good.  Glad I stuck at it 'cos after that I couldn't put it down.  Absolutely brilliant read.
> 
> Hoping to go and see the film next week.
> 
> eta - the books called Q & A by Vikas Swarup .



This thread got me to read the book again - would recommend it.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Jan 17, 2009)

I heard Q & A  serialised  on the radio a few years back, and really enjoyed it. Just come back from seeing the film today and I thought it was amazing - best film I've seen in a long time


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 17, 2009)

DJWrongspeed said:


> glad to hear MIA's music in the soundtrack hope she get's better known.



That MIA tune was on the radio non-stop all Summer last year and been nominated for a grammy. Fairly well known I'd say.

Saw the film today. It's everything people told me, a great 2 hours well spent.


----------



## zoltan (Jan 17, 2009)

just got back form teh Ritzy

It is a magnificent film - its makes you realsie what utter shite most modern releases really are


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 18, 2009)

loved it we watched it last night


----------



## The Groke (Jan 18, 2009)

Blimey - Urban united in critical acclaim shocka!

Surely _someone_ will be along in a moment to declare it shit? (Atomic Suplex? Jeff?)



I have had the thing on my hard drive for a week now, but have not got round to watching it yet.

Perhaps I should.


----------



## Strumpet (Jan 18, 2009)

I really want to see this after all the reviews from friends n few family members n now here.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 18, 2009)

I knew I'd enjoy this film the moment it was advertised. When it started to win awards I began to worry that it might be shit. Cause it's mainly pretencious twats on these panels. 

It was brill though.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 18, 2009)

Swarfega said:


> I have had the thing on my hard drive for a week now, but have not got round to watching it yet.
> 
> Perhaps I should.



You should!

Cheers for the heads up, just got a screener for my son to watch


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 18, 2009)

Swarfega said:


> Surely _someone_ will be along in a moment to declare it shit? (Atomic Suplex? Jeff?)
> .



Sorry you will have to wait until it comes on telly before I tell you that it's shit.


----------



## softybabe (Jan 18, 2009)

Strumpet said:


> I really want to see this after all the reviews from friends n few family members n now here.



Me too...might drag youngman with me...i've got my NUS for discount


----------



## Kanda (Jan 18, 2009)

Swarfega said:


> Blimey - Urban united in critical acclaim shocka!
> 
> Surely _someone_ will be along in a moment to declare it shit? (Atomic Suplex? Jeff?)
> 
> ...



I got a copy I'll drop round to Jeffs. I reckon he'll like it though 

He admitted liking Transformers to me the other day, the div


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 18, 2009)

Looking forward to this.  Apparently quite a lot of UK south asians are digging it, although some people are moaning that people are only going to see a film about India cos a white guy made it, and why can't westerners appreciate yer usual bollywood fare etc.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 18, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> although some people are moaning that people are only going to see a film about India cos a white guy made it, and why can't westerners appreciate yer usual bollywood fare etc.



It occurred to me earlier that would happen as soon as someone compared it to City of God.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 18, 2009)

Kanda said:


> He admitted liking Transformers to me the other day, the div



Jesus. Transformers and Shipwrecked.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 18, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Jesus. Transformers and Shipwrecked.



Mid-life crisis perhaps ?


----------



## RubyBlue (Jan 18, 2009)

tastebud said:


> the soundtrack has been despatched to me - yay



I'm listening to the soundtrack now - it's great - going to see the movie on Wednesday and really looking forward to it


----------



## The Groke (Jan 18, 2009)

Kanda said:


> He admitted liking Transformers to me the other day, the div



 X infinity.

(I do too )


----------



## RubyBlue (Jan 18, 2009)

Swarfega said:


> I have had the thing on my hard drive for a week now, but have not got round to watching it yet.
> 
> Perhaps I should.



I downloaded it on Friday night and planned to watch it last night but as I was flicking though it to check how good a copy it was it looked like a movie that should really be seen on a big screen so I'm waiting till Wednesday to do the done thing and pay to see it


----------



## moose (Jan 18, 2009)

It was absolutely shite
having to queue up to get in. Film was utterly magnificent, as was the meal in Rushholme that we had to go and eat immediately afterwards


----------



## felixthecat (Jan 19, 2009)

Loved it, loved it, loved it. Me and the daughter went on saturday afternoon - obviously a good time cos empty seats on either side of us to spread out on and no queueing for tickets as got 'em from the atm machine.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 19, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Looking forward to this.  Apparently quite a lot of UK south asians are digging it, although some people are moaning that people are only going to see a film about India cos a white guy made it, and why can't westerners appreciate yer usual bollywood fare etc.



When the general populace of India watch Hollyoaks etc they can complain that I don't watch their populist Tv & film shite.


----------



## han (Jan 19, 2009)

I loved every minute of it - the best film I've seen for absolutely ages. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. It was sensory/emotional overload - extraordinary and magnificent!


----------



## editor (Jan 19, 2009)

RubyBlue said:


> I downloaded it on Friday night and planned to watch it last night but as I was flicking though it to check how good a copy it was it looked like a movie that should really be seen on a big screen so I'm waiting till Wednesday to do the done thing and pay to see it


Absolutely: unless you've got an 80" plasma screen and a huge surround system at home you're going to miss an awful lot of the impact of the film.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 20, 2009)

I thought it held the attention and was generally good fun, in a Oliver! meets boy chases girl way. Not totally profound, if that's your thing.

Thought the soundtrack drummers must have been knackered at the end and Chris Tarrant needs to ease off with the fake tan.



Oh, and it started 28 minutes after the advertised time - 28 minutes of ad's and promo's. Had to hang around outside for so long I thought they were going to call the peado police.


----------



## dolly's gal (Jan 20, 2009)

the more i think about it, the cheesier it seems. and the more i listen to people going on about how fantastic it is, the less i like it. it was "OK". although i really cannot fathom what the fuss is about


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2009)

dolly's gal said:


> the more i think about it, the cheesier it seems. and the more i listen to people going on about how fantastic it is, the less i like it. it was "OK". although i really cannot fathom what the fuss is about



to an extent I think a lot of great movies can be like that tho. There is nothing in them that is really deep, or innovative, or even especially well done.  In both this and Casablanca (which is one of my very favourite movies) they teeter on the brink of high cheese, but are done so well that they pull it off. In both cases the performances are just _right_, they're not outstanding _acting_, like in There Will Be Blood or The Wrestler, but they are very naturalistic, and seem  'authentic'. The writing doesn't contain that many really great single lines (many of Casablanca's are now legendary, but an awful lot of them were fairly bog standard for the time, they have just entered into legend as examplars for 'how that kind of thing is done'). The direction and cinematography are both also very professionally, and very capably done, but are both 'by the book' in every way.

So, both Casablanca and Slumdog _should_ really be quite average movies, but they are raised beyond that because of the holes in their plots, the somewhat ludicrous and unbelievable nature of their stories, holes that we see but are quite happy to overlook because we want to believe, and _everything_ else in the movie is well done enough for us to carry that happy suspension of disbelief throughout the movie. We are almost on the edge of our seats because we know it could topple over into sentimental tosh at any moment.  But it doesn't, and so we are happy.

Maybe it is the feelgood movie of the year, even if it shouldn't be advertised as that.


----------



## camouflage (Jan 20, 2009)

xbow's sis said:


> Saw this last night on a preview showing at the local fleapit, new movie from Danny Boyle, he of the trainspotting, shallow grave etc. Seriously good film, strongly recommended, really well structured, great characters, story and felt like I had actually experienced the real india by the end of it. Take a chance, you wont be disappointed.



Did, great film (I've had a lucky run of catching good films lately  )

Many levels of filmy goodness, visualy, plot-wise, characters, score. I didn't really like the bollywoodesque ending though, nout wrong with abit of prancing but in this case it spoilt the sense of immersion, it' like- oh, it was all just a song an dance afterall. Tht's my worst criticism of the movie.


----------



## perplexis (Jan 20, 2009)

Decent film, I enjoyed it. It does want a big screen, for sure.
But it's not like, amazing. It's so overproduced and shiny- even the grime looks really clean somehow. 
MIA's shouting annoys the shit out of me, but the soundtrack was good despite that.
The credit sequence/ending utterly demolished the emotional impact of the preceding 2 hours. What the fuck? It's even more irritating than the dance scene at the end of Zatoichi.
So, um, I think I'm partly a dissenter here.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jan 21, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Saw this this evening and thought it was very good. A terribly cheesy ending but they just about get away with it on account of the rest of the film being so good.



I thought that the Bollywood ending was very "India."


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 21, 2009)

editor said:


> I think your average 16 year old would have seen far far worse. It's a magnificent film.



jesus christ.



Um, it's ok. It's extremely cheesy - passes the time in an entertaining way just about.

Have you all lost it?


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 21, 2009)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I thought that the Bollywood ending was very "India."



interesting that you did...and I know I don't _know_ you so I maybe teaching you to suck eggs...but...and I don't provide this Link with any research other than the first click in Google I chose.

http://www.indianmuslims.info/artic...rticles/bollywood_and_the_indian_muslims.html

I don't think Danny Boyle's inclusion of the End scene was not unintentional also.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 21, 2009)

chegrimandi said:


> Have you all lost it?



signal to noise ratio.


----------



## RubyBlue (Jan 21, 2009)

editor said:


> Absolutely: unless you've got an 80" plasma screen and a huge surround system at home you're going to miss an awful lot of the impact of the film.



Well it's Orange Wednesday now - been looking forward to this for days - I'm sure it's going to be worth the wait


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 21, 2009)

oh & http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/golden-diplomat-basks-in-slumdog-glory/410053/

from

http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com/

via this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/thinkingallowed/


- - - - - - - - -

This, has also been an interesing topic of debate, & apparent ire if not outstanding hypocrisy, racism & seemingly rude with misplaced(but vitriolic) xenophobia within the users of The Scene. For which, h'obviously, I won't bother providing any links.

Not directed at Slumdog Millionaire per se (speaks volumes!) but with anything else that has dared to show it's face(sic) of the Indian Subcontinent ilk recently.


----------



## pboi (Jan 21, 2009)

hands up if you cried?


*hand up*


----------



## RubyBlue (Jan 22, 2009)

pboi said:


> hands up if you cried?
> 
> 
> *hand up*



Saw it last night - absolutley loved it - there may have been a little tear in my eye or it could've been the rain as I left


----------



## purplex (Jan 22, 2009)

Wow!


----------



## rover07 (Jan 22, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> I don't think Danny Boyle's inclusion of the End scene was not unintentional also.



You mean the dancing wasnt intentional??

I thought it was brilliant. Very uplifting after what i thought was a sad(ish) end to the film.

Can we discuss the plot now on here?


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 23, 2009)

How much of the film is in Hindi? 
It's just they only do German & French subtitles here -  may have to wait for a trip back to the UK


----------



## tastebud (Jan 23, 2009)

it's kinda half and half. which sucks for you, but on a general note works really well - comes across as quite believable that way.


----------



## foo (Jan 23, 2009)

i've seen this now and think preferred the book - which i shall find, and re-read.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 23, 2009)

rover07 said:


> You mean the dancing wasnt intentional??



nah... I was expressing a "double negative"...it was totally intentional. 

with a twist.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 23, 2009)

I think the dancing was tongue in cheek. Along the lines of I bet cause its a film about india you were expecting this sooner or later, well here you go then. Take that!


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 23, 2009)

I don't think Danny Boyle is that crass but he would not be surprised that the viewers of his work would be.

But we all have the ability to "think" independently... atm.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 23, 2009)

The book is £2 in Fopp if anyone's thinking of reading it after seeing the film.


----------



## tastebud (Jan 23, 2009)

Marius said:


> I think the dancing was tongue in cheek. Along the lines of I bet cause its a film about india you were expecting this sooner or later, well here you go then. Take that!


spot on. and showing that in the end, it didn't take itself tooo seriously. imvho of course. i loved it - put the icing on the cake for me.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 23, 2009)

Pie 1 said:


> How much of the film is in Hindi?
> It's just they only do German & French subtitles here -  may have to wait for a trip back to the UK



hangon... the English 'subs' are part of the construct of the cinematography...ask at the cinema if they have been provided with a German/French print  where the subs _in shot_ have been changed to those languages? I doubt it...as they are equally of importance IMVVVVHO


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 23, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> hangon... the English 'subs' are part of the construct of the cinematography...ask at the cinema if they have been provided with a German/French print  where the subs _in shot_ have been changed to those languages? I doubt it...as they are equally of importance IMVVVVHO



Sorry mate, you've lost me


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 23, 2009)

The subtitled parts are not typical subtitles. They don't just appear at the bottom of the screen, it's like they're 'imprinted' in the film and appear in different areas of the screen. 

I'm not making a very good job of describing it and there's probably a proper term but I think what bosky is saying is there may be versions with the words in German/French or whatever.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 23, 2009)

Part2 said:


> I think what bosky is saying is there may be versions with the words in German/French or whatever.



or not!  they are like "speech bubbles" for the Hindi bits. 

So the subs of the English will be as usual at bottom of screen...BUT you may find that the Hindi translation into English in the speech bubbles is then in turn subbed at the bottom of screen as per usual....like for example how non-English text in shot is sometimes translated into subs?...ya get me Pie?


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 23, 2009)

Oh well (@self)


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 24, 2009)

It's quite interesting reading some Indian reviews of the film:

'Slumdog Millionaire' is worse. It looks at Mumbai as a swarming slum of sleaze, sex and crime... After seeing Boyle's much talked-about film, it's crystal clear why this murky and squalid portrait of Mumbai has the Americans preening in delight. At one point after being thrashed mercilessly, our hero Jamal tells American tourists, "You wanted to see real India? Here it is." "Now we'll show you the real America," the American lady replies handing Jamal a $100 bill. This, without any apparent sense of irony.

There is a very thin line dividing slick from scum. 'Slumdog Millionaire' doesn't stop to make those subtle distinctions. It moves at a frenetic pace creating a kind of sweaty energy that one sees in marathon runners in the last lap of their journey. Boyle is constantly busy whipping up a hysterical banshee of sights and sounds in Mumbai denoting the embittered angry generation of the underprivileged class that grows up in the slums dreaming of the good Life.

http://www.lifestyle.headlinesindia.com/entertainment/moviereview/slumdog-millionaire.html


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 25, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> ya get me Pie?



Yep, think so: Slumdog has funky subs, right?


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 25, 2009)

bi0boy said:


> It's quite interesting reading some Indian reviews of the film:



Aye, but then again, like a lot of middle class educated folk in India, Journo's probably have a tendency to be dreadfully pompous & judgemental as well -  esspecially about anything to do with lower castes etc.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 25, 2009)

bi0boy said:


> "After seeing Boyle's much talked-about film, it's crystal clear why this murky and squalid portrait of Mumbai has the Americans preening in delight..."


He did the same with Edinburgh in Trainspotting, it wasn't seen as a comment on the whole city though.

The slums are necessary in this film.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jan 25, 2009)

Just back from the (seriously rammed) Ritzy - we really enjoyed it.  It's not the deepest film in the world tbh - but it was very entertaining and well worth the price of a ticket.  The little kids were brilliant!


----------



## silver (Jan 25, 2009)

I was a bit disappointed with it really, I think with all the hype I was expecting to be totally blown away, but I thought some of the acting was a bit wooden 

Agree with some of the comments earlier questioning the marketing as a 'feel good' film too, some scenes were really awful to watch


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 25, 2009)

silver said:


> some scenes were really awful to watch



I watch some serious sick shit...gore_viddy_feltch I call it... but I almost stopped watching _Slumdog_ after some of the opening scenes.

talk about peeps being desensitised.... or is it that people really believe that because they "know" that _sh1t happens_ it's "acceptable"...as long as you don't take it tooooo seriously &  it has an upbeat conclusion. j33bus.

Did people who had leukaemia run to the cinema to see _Love Story_?


----------



## trabuquera (Jan 26, 2009)

Hmmm. Saw it last night and enjoyed it, but I still have mixed feelings.

First of all - it's NOT a deeply authentic or very deeply felt or very realistic portrayal of life in India's slums. For that, see the (vastly better, but also much more downbeat) Salaam Bombay!

Is it just Danny Boyle having a holiday in someone else's misery? No, I wouldn't go that far ... in the way this movie fizzes with life and energy I think it avoids all of that - the stroppy, bolshy, foulmouthed character of the kids avoids most of the Dickens-like miserabilism. But it did hurl rather a lot of hard Indian issues at you (factional riots, police torture, Fagins controlling child beggars, gang bosses, etc) without giving you much of a sense of the less sensationalistic side of the culture. (I'm not saying they should have extended domestic scenes of everyone praying and receiving good guidance from Wise Old Elders, it just seemed to be banking more on the tabloidy stuff than more subtle things.

And while it looks and moves like a dream, Slumdog Millionaire is also *not quite* good enough on its own terms to be a stunning movie. I thought the lead actor (though sympathetic and working intelligently) just didn't convince as a born-and-bred-in-Mumbai slumdog. (And I'm not even a Skins fan or follower, so it wasn't down to typecasting). I think that blunted a good deal of the film's 'points' about class divides and the audience's supposed hope for him to win out in the end.

Most obviously there's a bit of a problem for anyone expecting anything 'lifelike' (even in the plasticised sense of Hollywood convention) - there are gaping holes in the plot, which is built largely on stereotypes (good/bad brother, childhood trauma, fat villains in silk dressing gowns, gorgeous heroine who mostly just simpers and looks sad a lot while waiting to be rescued, etc.). BUT a lot of that is (I think) an attempt to marry the cliches of a thousand Bollywood productions with Boyle's more 'edgy' style. It's a bit of a creaky hybrid but for the most part I was amazed how well they pulled it off. But if occasionally wooden and posturing acting puts you off, this movie would be ruined for you...

It's really not bad and I would recommend anyone to see it. But I DO have sneaking suspicions that it's getting a lot more attention than it really deserves, because of Boyle, and that Indian filmmakers trying to do something equally interesting would never get the thing made in the first place.

Also - I can see why middle-class and upper-class Indians would hate it - but I'm not sure how keen they are on Bollywood stuff either. And for everyone else who isn't Indian: it's not a straight choice between Slumdog Millionaire or outright Bollywood cheese (?paneer?) if you don't fancy either -there are some more recent Indian-made movies which don't have a single spangle or song 'n dance, and still have interesting things to say about INdia.


----------



## g force (Jan 26, 2009)

bi0boy said:


> It's quite interesting reading some Indian reviews of the film:
> 
> 'Slumdog Millionaire' is worse. It looks at Mumbai as a swarming slum of sleaze, sex and crime... After seeing Boyle's much talked-about film, it's crystal clear why this murky and squalid portrait of Mumbai has the Americans preening in delight. At one point after being thrashed mercilessly, our hero Jamal tells American tourists, "You wanted to see real India? Here it is." "Now we'll show you the real America," the American lady replies handing Jamal a $100 bill. This, without any apparent sense of irony.
> 
> ...



From my experience of Mumbai it seems that reviewer is pissed off that it's too close to the truth.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 26, 2009)

Terrible film.  Very disappointing.  Completely over-hyped.

I even gave it a second watch to see if there was something I just didn't "get" on the first viewing.

Awful acting from nearly the whole cast.  
Predictable storyline.
Cliché-ridden dross.

The worst aspect for me was the cringeworthy way they tried to stylise some scenes with an urban, yoof, edgy, gangsta feel, with a bit of hindi hip-hop beat blaring over any scene with a gun in it. 

3/10


----------



## Melinda (Jan 26, 2009)

I saw this last night and really enjoyed it. I was really surprised; again, after all the promotions I was expecting a 'feel good' movie. 

Loved the urchins making a living, the child actors were fantastic! 

The orphanage stuff shocked me silly. 

Not entirely surprised that Mumbai's millionaires object to the film, but apparently Amitabh Bachchan has denied the quoted attributed to him- that the film projected India as the "third world dirty underbelly."

Dev Patel was a little dead eyed though.


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2009)

RaverDrew said:


> Awful acting from nearly the whole cast.



the rest of your comments are perfectly vaild individual opinions.  But that one is just positively bollocks.


----------



## Melinda (Jan 26, 2009)

I must say the acting from the kids positively *makes* the film. 


Oh and loooooved the soundtrack.


----------



## Hellsbells (Jan 26, 2009)

I kind of agree with some of the comments made on this thread - about the movie being predictable and full of cliches. But imo, this didn't actually matter, or detract from my enjoyment of the movie in the slightest.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jan 26, 2009)

Saw it last night wasnt expecting much and it lived down to my expectations. Like a cross between east enders and zee fucking tv.....
What was the film about? Capitalism and poverty? And the answer is win "who wants to be a millionaire" crikey how inspiring.....


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 26, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> Saw it last night wasnt expecting much and it lived down to my expectations. Like a cross between east enders and zee fucking tv.....
> What was the film about? Capitalism and poverty? And the answer is win "who wants to be a millionaire" crikey how inspiring.....



Did you miss the bit where he *doesn't* go on WWTBAM for the money? And the way the film plot was *not* about whether he would escape from poverty? It is essentially a cliched love story, but what goes on around it is interesting, and there's no attempt to put forward 'solutions' to poverty - merely to depict it.

I think some people just want to be contrary


----------



## Melinda (Jan 26, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> I think some people just want to be contrary


No they dont!


----------



## Melinda (Jan 26, 2009)

*Slumdog child stars miss out on the movie millions*








> The child actors’ parents have accused the hit film’s producers of exploiting and underpaying the eight-year-olds, disclosing that both face uncertain futures in one of Mumbai’s most squalid slums.
> 
> The film’s British director, Danny Boyle, has spoken of how he set up trust funds for Rubina and Azharuddin and paid for their education. But it has emerged that the children, who played Latika and Salim in the early scenes of the film, were paid less than many Indian domestic servants.
> 
> ...



Story here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...onaire-stars-say-children-were-exploited.html


I wish I could say I was surprised. Just once it would have been good to see local folk in films get paid what they are due. That Gypsy town exploited in Borat?


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 27, 2009)

Well just to play devils's for a moment:

A: you're quoting from the Telegraph  

B: their education is already being paid for by the film makers

C:You have no idea how the trust funds were set up - The Parents are reportedly howling, but like most people they have't really thought about the reality of movie profits: The film has only just become a hit. In real terms, the film makers have probably yet to see a penny of it either, YET. & even if they have, the 1st people who see any of it will be their creditors etc.

The film makers have already paid the actors something. When you are making a film you have no idea weather or not it will be a success and the pressure on producers to account for every tiny little bit of budget is imense.
If trust funds have been set up, then when the money starts flowing, hopefully some will go there.

D:


> Rubina was paid £500 for a year’s work while Azharuddin received £1,700.



Typical misleading newspaper guff. 
They were paid for work _over the course of a year_. Filming did not take a whole year non stop.

It's a little early to be calling them cunts just yet, in other words.


----------



## Melinda (Jan 27, 2009)

Dammit, so we're being reasonable are we?  

A.  Its a quality paper, so up yours. *cough* 

B. Bunging these kids a couple of quid for food and setting them up in a local school is the barest of minimums. 

C. If a sense of fairness didnt move the producers to take these families out of a fricking slum before the film was released, then PR alone should have been enough.

Details of the trust funds will have been in the contracts signed by the parents; again even if only for PR purposes, the film producers should have ensured the parents knew about them/were at least 'on message.' 

Even if the movie had tanked, there will have been cash to lift the family out of 'grinding poverty' immediately. How much would it have taken?

As it is I hope all the families get a decent dividend and some education/ training opportunities. A fair the bulk of it *must* be ring-fenced for the kids until they reach the age of majority.

PLUS- Danny Boyle and his crew *owe* that slum- they should invest in some community projects. Im sure one Awards Ceremony outfit would fund a school or clinic for a good while.  


And finally, while the producers may not be officially cunts yet, they ARE  fuckwits for not handling this shit before the press got to the families.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 27, 2009)

I suspect the child actors parents have prematurally ended the child actors career in pursuit of an extra pay off.


----------



## Melinda (Jan 27, 2009)

Come off it. 

Wanting not to live in a shit heap while the producers and director live it up in Los Angeles is hardly unreasonable. 

Those kids will be written into lots of Bollywood films now. Hopefully.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 27, 2009)

I'd imagine the parents are naive, probably uneducated - certainly in the ways of the western media - and possibly easily manipulated by freelancers with a sniff of a name/money-making 'exclusive' but  . . . would you employ a kid whose parents will likely shit all over you?

It's tabloid junk, imo; stick 'Dean Nelson and Barney Henderson' and it suggests (at least to me) chancer stringers come bloggers who dig out an angle on anything they can and sell to whoever will buy their latest exclusive.


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> I'd imagine the parents are naive, probably uneducated - certainly in the ways of the western media - and possibly easily manipulated by freelancers with a sniff of a name/money-making 'exclusive' but  . . . would you employ a kid whose parents will likely shit all over you?



what are you on about elsie? Newspaper 'hacks' would exploit poor families, but a film-maker never would??!!  Plain daft.  Your comments re Nelson & Henderson being 'chancer stringers' is also complete bullshit.  Nelson is the Telegraphs South Asia editor, and has been behind a number of big exposes. Sounds like you didn't even bother doing the 'research' you just claim to have done.

I susopect Boyle and the financiers simply didn't have a clue as to how much money, if any, Slumdog would make*, and so the initial payments to the kids were probably poor. As to the value of the trust funds, who knows?


* and that's before we get into the crooked way in which films' 'profits' are calculated


----------



## rover07 (Jan 28, 2009)

The real hero in the film has to be the 'bad' brother Salim. He saves Jamal and Latika several times during the film. The last time resulting in his own death.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 28, 2009)

The real slumkids don't like it

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5597745.ece


----------



## Melinda (Jan 28, 2009)

This one does!





> I had never been to a cinema hall before I watched Slumdog Crorepati (the Hindi version of Slumdog Millionaire). I really liked the film.
> 
> The areas where Jamal and Salim (the two brothers who grow up together but meet a different fate) live are just like it is near our place.
> 
> But the most important thing I liked about the film was the story itself. The way he grows up and becomes a winner - it is a story of hope. We gain a lot of hope if a person who has witnessed so much in life can succeed in winning a tough competition.



More here: 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7847573.stm


Where as the article you've quoted could come across as a *little* muck-rakey, maybe?  


> From the Times article:
> *The protest was organised by Tateshwar Vishwakarma, a social activist who filed a lawsuit over the title last week *against four Indians involved in its production - a lead actor, the music director and two others.
> 
> "Referring to people living in slums as dogs is a violation of human rights," said Mr Vishwakarma... "We will burn Danny Boyle [the film's British director] effigies in 56 slums here."


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jan 28, 2009)

Going to watch his tonight


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 28, 2009)

> From your Times article:
> 
> 
> "Referring to people living in slums as dogs is a violation of human rights," said Mr Vishwakarma... "We will burn Danny Boyle [the film's British director] effigies in 56 slums here."



Ah, nothing like the rational response of buring the ol' effigies eh, Mr. Vishwakarma?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 28, 2009)

Melinda said:


> This one does!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





man effigy-burning is big over there. They'll burn you in effigy at the drop of a hat.


----------



## Melinda (Jan 28, 2009)

@ DC and Pie_1

When that Shilpa Shetty/ Jade Goody  thing _flared up _ (sorry, it *had* to be done) it didnt seem like they could be bothered, as if some photographer had asked if they were going to burn an effigy and they had asked each other if they really ought to. 

Four bored people burning a wig and a sheet. Irans fundies dont have to worry about their pyro title just yet.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 28, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> man effigy-burning is big over there. They'll burn you in effigy at the drop of a hat.



"Bit too much turmeric for my liking" Burn him!!!!


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 28, 2009)

Melinda said:


> This one does!



didn't read the article tbh 

Just heard the story on the radio yesterday and thought I'd best find a link before posting.


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2009)

Melinda said:


> Where as the article you've quoted could come across as a *little* muck-rakey, maybe?



in what way is that muck-rakey?


----------



## Melinda (Jan 28, 2009)

I said a *little* muck-rakey. 

An organised protest by a community activist with an agenda, versus the considered opinion of a woman from a slum who has actually seen the film? 

It just struck me that if the Times journalist who filed the story couldnt be arsed to name check the community organisation these activist are supposedly representing - then the chances are the welfare of the slum dwellers probably isnt uppermost in his mind. 

This, in particular is purely reductive: 


> Social, political and religious activists in India often organise violent protests over films to try to win publicity for their cause.




Its just an opinion though


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2009)

I dont think I understand that at all, tho it does seem rather patronising.

It sounds like the activist HAS seen the film, it doesn't say he was representing the group he also works with, so no need for any name (indeed they may well not want there name attached), but, more to the point, he is simply engaging in a bit of traditional protest with the aim of promoting the rights of some of the poorest people on the planet.

Fucking good luck to him I say.


----------



## aylee (Jan 28, 2009)

I went to see it on Saturday night.  I was in an absolutely foul mood and was prepared to conclude that this film was the sentimental tosh that it seemed that it might be, judging by the reviews .... but nothing could be further from the truth.  A genuinely heart-warming film which contained a lot of truths about human beings and our twenty-first century obsession with celebrity, wealth and escapism.

Great stuff.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 28, 2009)

Slumdog is used not as a term for how the director and the film see someone from the slums. But how the establishment e.g. Police, game show host etc. see him. 

The film itself is passing the message that just cause you are from the slum doesn't mean that you can't retain knowledge or be entrepreneurs (the way those kids had to be to survive). 

So those activists are either being deliberately stupid or are just stupid.


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2009)

Or maybe you are?  

Perhaps the activists are trying to raise the point that those who live on slums are often treated in just that way, and that it's shameful. They are fairly obviously making a wider point, not simply one about the film. It would be a shame if that got ignored simply because we like the film.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 28, 2009)

belboid said:


> Or maybe you are?
> 
> Perhaps the activists are trying to raise the point that those who live on slums are often treated in just that way, and that it's shameful. They are fairly obviously making a wider point, not simply one about the film. It would be a shame if that got ignored simply because we like the film.


 
So you are going for Deliberately Stupid. Deliberately ignoring and misrepresenting the true motives of the film.

Attacking someone who is on their side. Whose film has given the issue wider exposure than they could ever had.

In return for his service of raising their issue for them (very high into the public eye) they spit hatred at him and through their condemnation are in fact trying to discourage people from viewing a film that is trying to win the audience to their cause.

Supporting the film and saying its good but doesn’t go far enough etc. etc. doesn’t get them into the headlines. 
Whereas promising to burn effigies gets their organisation personal exposure. That’s more important in their opinion than the film spreading the (admittedly diluted) message as wide as possible. So they take that approach. Organisation self interest wins.

I just hope them ranting about it doesn’t dissuade the middle classes in India from seeing it and feeling empathy for those in the slums and possibly doing something about it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2009)

No need to shout.

That is a load of old crap you've just spouted tho.  The film isn't 'trying to win the audience to their cause', its trying to tell a story, provide some entertainment, make a bit of cash. Sto projecting your own wishful thinking on to it.


----------



## rover07 (Jan 28, 2009)

Marius said:


> So you are going for Deliberately Stupid. Deliberately ignoring and misrepresenting the true motives of the film.
> 
> Attacking someone who is on their side. Whose film has given the issue wider exposure than they could ever had.
> 
> ...



You're quite bold


----------



## Gromit (Jan 28, 2009)

belboid said:


> No need to shout.


 
Not shouting. Just switched the font to arial (cause i typed it up in Word first) and its embiggened* the font a little.



* Embiggened is a Perfectly Cromulent Word


----------



## Gromit (Jan 28, 2009)

belboid said:


> The film isn't 'trying to win the audience to their cause'.


 
Its not its primary motive of course (cause films that don't entertain don't get viewed) but film makers do try and project social conscience into their films as well.

You be telling me next that Platoon was just telling a story and not deliberately condeming the Vietnam Conflict. 
That Stephen Spielberg wasn't passing any messages in Schindelers List.
That the Thin Red Line doesn't care about war.

Yeah films are populist and there to make money but they also have the ability to pass diluted messages to wide audiences.


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2009)

pretty rubbish examples. those films were directed by people with a long history of developing films around those themes, you can hardly say that about Boyle can you? (which isn't meant as a slag off of Boyle in any way, but is simply a fact).

Whether this activist has deliberately missed the point of the film (and I doubt it is jsut the title that is objected to), he is raising the profile of the slumdwellers and hopefully getting a bit more political action than would otherwise be the case.

Good on him.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 28, 2009)

belboid said:


> Or maybe you are?
> 
> Perhaps the activists are trying to raise the point that those who live on slums are often treated in just that way, and that it's shameful.



Well maybe they should start in their own backyard first in that case. 
Rather than the oh-so-mature burning of effigies of a forgein film director, why not put their energies into getting the message across to the middle & rich Indian classes, who have a rather dubious attitude toward these folk too - a few of whom I have witnessed on a number of occasions physically kick beggers on the street out of their way...


----------



## Melinda (Jan 28, 2009)




----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2009)

Pie 1 said:


> Well maybe they should start in their own backyard first in that case.
> Rather than the oh-so-mature burning of effigies of a forgein film director, why not put their energies into getting the message across to the middle & rich Indian classes, who have a rather dubious attitude toward these folk too - a few of whom I have witnessed on a number of occasions physically kick beggers on the street out of their way...



where do you think they're starting?  They've not nipped over to Chelsea to pay Mr Boyle a visit.

As for burning effigies, you might have noticed that there is along tradition of dong so in India, so your attack on their 'maturity' is actually an insult to Indian people in general.

Dear god!  Does liking a film mean you must remove all critical facilities?


----------



## tbaldwin (Jan 28, 2009)

Danny Boyle should be tortured and then killed for his comments on what the real stars the kids got for starring in this film.
He said according to the london paper that the kids got paid 3x the average wage of the people in that area for starring in the film. What a total SCUMBAG. How much is he going to earn from this film. Vermin like him should have their eyes taken out with a spoon.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 28, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> Danny Boyle should be tortured and then killed for his comments on what the real stars the kids got for starring in this film.
> He said according to the london paper that the kids got paid 3x the average wage of the people in that area for starring in the film. What a total SCUMBAG. How much is he going to earn from this film. Vermin like him should have their eyes taken out with a spoon.


 
The director doesn't set salaries. He's just an employee himself.

Its the Producer/s you should be ranting at. 
Not the executive producers mind, they just phone around begging angels for investment.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jan 28, 2009)

Marius said:


> The director doesn't set salaries. He's just an employee himself.
> 
> Its the Producer/s you should be ranting at.
> Not the executive producers mind, they just phone around begging angels for investment.



Not saying he didd set the salaries but his attempted defence of the pay diffferentials showed what a scumdog he is.


----------



## strummerville (Jan 28, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> He said according to the london paper that the kids got paid 3x the average wage of the people in that area for starring in the film.



Oh so it must be true then.


----------



## Detroit City (Jan 28, 2009)

i really MUST see this flick, everyone and their mother is talkin' about it...


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jan 28, 2009)

*whispers it was bloody good I thought, a cinema must see though as the visual excellence will be all but lost on a small screen


----------



## tbaldwin (Jan 29, 2009)

strummerville said:


> Oh so it must be true then.



No but id say there was a very good chance that it was true wouldnt you? Interestingly in the Guardian yesterday there was more negative reaction for this awful film form people in india who objected to being described as slumDOGS.

Nice to see that the real stars of the film have not been seen at any of the wanky film prize nights. Danny Boyle should be shot..........eventually.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 1, 2009)

Watched this last night and, despite my Girlfriend and her daughter gassing all the way through it and continuosly pronouncing 'it's not like the book', I really didn't enjoy it that much.

The storytelling was all over the place - I couldn't work out if it was supposed to be one of those patronizing brit-flicks like The Full Monty where we all feel so warm and lovely towards poor working class scum who rise above their misery to strip naked and earn a crust (also see Brassed Off, Billy Elliot, East is East, Little Voice for similiar examples of warm misery served with hot chocolate and victoria sponge!) or an equally patronizing social/political commentary on corruption and poverty in the third world.

Actually, my final feelings are that it didn't succeed in much of anything other than being yet another example of why Danny Boyle should have quit after Trainspotting.


----------



## rover07 (Feb 3, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> No but id say there was a very good chance that it was true wouldnt you? Interestingly in the Guardian yesterday there was more negative reaction for this awful film form people in india who objected to being described as slumDOGS.
> 
> Nice to see that the real stars of the film have not been seen at any of the wanky film prize nights. Danny Boyle should be shot..........eventually.



Thats a bit harsh ...its only a film. 

You talk like Danny Boyle invented the slums.


----------



## strummerville (Feb 3, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> No but id say there was a very good chance that it was true wouldnt you? Interestingly in the Guardian yesterday there was more negative reaction for this awful film form people in india who objected to being described as slumDOGS.
> 
> Nice to see that the real stars of the film have not been seen at any of the wanky film prize nights. Danny Boyle should be shot..........eventually.



And meanwhile you just keep posting your righteous stuff on bulletin boards brother, that really helps your bretheren in Mumbai. What a constructive, revolutionary keyboard warrior you are.


----------



## Biglittlefish (Feb 3, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> Danny Boyle should be tortured and then killed for his comments on what the real stars the kids got for starring in this film.
> He said according to the london paper that the kids got paid 3x the average wage of the people in that area for starring in the film. What a total SCUMBAG. How much is he going to earn from this film. Vermin like him should have their eyes taken out with a spoon.



Bollocks. Danny Boyle chose to make a relatively low budget film set in the slums of India. It has no stars, half of it is subtitled and its made by a directer coming off a commercial failure. He fought the studio through the whole process. It is a miracle it even made its money back. If money was what he wanted he could be very rich, very fast, directing Tv shows or blockbuster movies. 
I saw him speak at a screening of the movie and he happily answered any questions put to him and came across as a nice, modest guy. While that is hardly conclusive I'll take it over a report in the fucking murdoch London celb tits pic rag.


----------



## Upchuck (Feb 3, 2009)

I saw this movie, and while I can understand why less informed people are impressed, it actually wasn't that great a movie.  The slums of India are nothing new, and anyone over 25 who doesn't have an idea of the hardships endured by low caste Indians, particuarly on a forum like this, should take a look at themselves.  This is just another feelgood movie in a long list of feelgood movies, just has the yukky slums side to it.  Not a classic by any means.  
6/10


----------



## Gromit (Feb 3, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> and anyone over 25 who doesn't have an idea of the hardships endured by low caste Indians, particuarly on a forum like this, should take a look at themselves.



Is the whole world over 25 then? Educating those under 25 is what? Of no consequence.

You'd be surprised how many people don't know fuck all about countries other than their own. America is renowned for containing loads of em. Okay urbanites are in the main pretty switched on but the whole country aren't urbanites. Imagine the impact not on someone like you but some ignorant louts or it girls.

How many already knew but due to the Novocaine of modern life ceased be moved, bothered by it or had just forgotten about it. Maybe despite their prior knowledge they'll be moved to do something about it now that they've been reminded.

I can see tourism to India being increased as a result of this film. Which is good for their economy and hopefully some of it will trickle down to those in slums.


----------



## Upchuck (Feb 3, 2009)

Marius said:


> *I can see tourism to India being increased as a result of this film. Which is good for their economy and hopefully some of it will trickle down to those in slums. *



Gee that made me laugh.  You would have to rearrange the whole caste system to have that money trickle down into the slums.  Do some research matey, that is if you are not too exhausted by your temper.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 3, 2009)

It's alright - not the best film ever, but competently made, like much of Boyle's work


----------



## Gromit (Feb 3, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> Gee that made me laugh.  You would have to rearrange the whole caste system to have that money trickle down into the slums.  Do some research matey, that is if you are not too exhausted by your temper.



I know about the caste system 
Do you think only the upper castes have jobs? Every waiter, shoeshine boy, beggar is upper caste?

Sometimes its even possible for someone who is upper caste to have less money than someone of a lower caste to them. Money isn't what makes them supposedly superior, just breeding.

I remember a documentary where this one worker said that his immediate superior owed him money. He isn't allowed to refuse a request to borrow money and he's not allowed to ask when he is going to get it back. He gets paid back if and when it suits the upper caste twat.


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> I can understand why less informed people are impressed,



arrogant, ignorant, prick.


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 3, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> while I can understand why less informed people are impressed


----------



## Upchuck (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> arrogant, ignorant, prick.



Well you have self-identified as to which category you fall in to   Just because Hollywood raves about a film doesn't mean it's good.


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

Aah yes, and your analysis was so detailed and complex wasn't it?


----------



## Upchuck (Feb 3, 2009)

I can see from your posts you have a 'thing' for this movie.  So be it.  I am just surprised anyone of adult age would be ignorant to the conditions of slum dwellers in India.  I can understand Americans being ignorant, but certainly not British folk. 

Anyway, as I said.....6/10.  Not bad but not great.


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

Why do you think anyone on here is ignorant about the slums?  A rather arrogant thing to assume. I'd be fairly sure you are wrong. Very sure, even.

I care not whether you cared for the movie or not, its just a film after all, but don't insult our intelligence by stating that the reason I (or anyone else) does is because we are ignorant/


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 3, 2009)

You're a bit of a tool, aren't you?
ETA: Upchuck not belboid


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

I'm a spirit level - does that count as a tool or an accessory?


----------



## Upchuck (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> Why do you think anyone on here is ignorant about the slums?  A rather arrogant thing to assume. I'd be fairly sure you are wrong. Very sure, even.
> 
> I care not whether you cared for the movie or not, its just a film after all, but don't insult our intelligence* by stating that the reason I (or anyone else) does is because we are ignorant*/



The fact that you seem to have taken my comments about the movie personally is laughable


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

not taking anything personally, just pointing out that you are an ignorant, arrogant, prick.


----------



## Upchuck (Feb 3, 2009)

Mmmmmm


----------



## Upchuck (Feb 3, 2009)

Well done.....?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 3, 2009)

Anyway .... 

Saw it the other night.

Thought it was great - best film I've seen in ages. THe depiction of the squala, crime, poverty and also the vitality of Mumbai was breathttaking. Great performances - especially from the kids. And the Indain Chris Tarrent was great - in a 'what a wanker!' way. 

Didn;t think it was cheesey. It was more of an modern fable - so you haven't got an ultra realistic plot - the whole things built around the device of the 'millioanaire' quiz show - so its fanciful to start with.

But so what? It throws the violent poverty and inequality of India right in your face whilst celebrating the resiliance, strength and humanity of those who manage to survive and even overcome it. And all thats coupled with fast paced drama, superb performances, huge vitality and a great soundtrack.

Whats not to like?


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 3, 2009)

Of course it was cheesy! It was mild cheddar though, rather than Primula or Cheddup


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

mild cheddar?  a rich and creamy roquefort, or maybe danish blue


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> mild cheddar?  a rich and creamy roquefort, or maybe danish blue



Nah, it's not good enough to be Roquefort, the king of cheeses.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 3, 2009)

This cheese deserves a toast!


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2009)

I enjoyed, though the grinding poverty depicted in places tripped my rage-o-meter at times.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Feb 4, 2009)

Loved it


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 4, 2009)

Biglittlefish said:


> Bollocks. Danny Boyle chose to make a relatively low budget film set in the slums of India. It has no stars, half of it is subtitled and its made by a directer coming off a commercial failure. He fought the studio through the whole process. It is a miracle it even made its money back. If money was what he wanted he could be very rich, very fast, directing Tv shows or blockbuster movies.
> I saw him speak at a screening of the movie and he happily answered any questions put to him and came across as a nice, modest guy. While that is hardly conclusive I'll take it over a report in the fucking murdoch London celb tits pic rag.



Had to laugh at this.

The main role was played by a british actor from Harrow. Apparently he couldnt find anybody right in India out of a population of 1 billion plus, so he asked his daughter and she said she liked the actor from skins.....
As for your overblown nonsense about "miracles" it made its money back have you seen how much advertising this film has had.
I wished id been at the screening you went to id have had a few questions that maybe he wouldnt have been so happy with.


----------



## dolly's gal (Feb 4, 2009)

i will be meeting danny boyle tonight. i'll be sure to pass on everyone's remarks


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 6, 2009)

dolly's gal said:


> i will be meeting danny boyle tonight. i'll be sure to pass on everyone's remarks



Hope you did dolly.
I know he seems to have been embarrased into being slightly more generous about the two young stars now. But you can bet they wont be getting anywhere near the money he or the boy from Harrow got.


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 9, 2009)

Sad to see the director and the boy from harrow both got bafta awards....Yeah OK the film was partly entertaining but overall preety indefensible.


----------



## belboid (Feb 9, 2009)

pisspoor trolling from a pisspoor troll


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 9, 2009)

it got away with murder, really, but I still pretty much enjoyed it. Bits along the way pissed me off, but somehow by the end the sheer chutzpah and enthusiasm cheered up even my cold dead heart.

Dev Patel can't act for shit though


----------



## DRINK? (Feb 10, 2009)

What is so great about it? I hear it is ok though not as good as city of God? (why would you compare the two?) and the MIA soundtrack is good though other than that it seems to be riding the hype and that is about it? good story, reasonably well told (if you like the Beaufoy shctick?)


----------



## belboid (Feb 10, 2009)

to compare it with City of God is bloody stupid, all they have in common is being about people who live in slums.

For why it's great, see my post 108.


----------



## jimadore (Feb 10, 2009)

*bollywood or bust*

slumdog  millonaire good story line ,great acting , stunts good , but what a way to get an autograph,  unforgetable !!!!  best film out of bollywood sofar.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Feb 10, 2009)

jimadore said:


> slumdog  millonaire good story line ,great acting , stunts good , but what a way to get an autograph,  unforgetable !!!!  best film out of bollywood sofar.



Hardly a 'film out of bollywood', though is it?

Not seen it yet, but from what I can see it's entirely a 'western' film in production etc.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 10, 2009)

I've not seen this yet, but someone walked into pub yesterday and complained about how violent it was and he was expecting it and walked out before it finished.  This guy's in his 60s and is an artist, well spoken, etc.

Another person in the bar decided they weren't going to see it on the basis that he thought it was shit.

I told him to ignore him.  However his opinion was that "he was educated and intelligent" so he should know.

I told them it was totally irrelevant, everyone has their own opinions.

Can't believe someone was refusing to go because someone else who's "intelligent" has said it's shit.

That's why I ignore film reviews.  If I took notice of film reviews, I'd be watching Woody Allen films and I have no intention of doing that


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Not seen it yet, but from what I can see it's entirely a 'western' film in production etc.


That's not entirely true. Not all of it is in English for starters.


----------



## belboid (Feb 10, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Hardly a 'film out of bollywood', though is it?
> 
> Not seen it yet, but from what I can see it's entirely a 'western' film in production etc.



well, technically it i filmed in the right locations with the right crew for a bollywood movie, but other than that....

it's certainly not the best 'indian' movie ever made, and wouldn't be even if it was actually indian, iyswim


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 10, 2009)

Bit tokenism though, yer non-English. Way it seemd to me, anyway.


----------



## belboid (Feb 10, 2009)

editor said:


> That's not entirely true. Not all of it is in English for starters.



neither is Jules et Jim


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 10, 2009)

belboid said:


> well, technically it i filmed in the right locations with the right crew for a bollywood movie, but other than that....
> 
> it's certainly not the best 'indian' movie ever made, and wouldn't be even if it was actually indian, iyswim



There was an Indian co-direcotor too. But yeh, it's as much an "indian" film as "The Good The Bad & The Ugly" was an american one


----------



## tarannau (Feb 10, 2009)

belboid said:


> to compare it with City of God is bloody stupid, all they have in common is being about people who live in slums.
> 
> For why it's great, see my post 108.



Indeed. I think it's because it features poor people like.

Really enjoyed Slumdog. It was unashamedly cheesy and should be easy to sneer at, but it's wonderful movie to watch on the big screen,  full of colour and enthusiasm. Even to a cynic like me.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Feb 10, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> There was an Indian co-direcotor too. But yeh, it's as much an "indian" film as "The Good The Bad & The Ugly" was an american one



Yeah, or the Harry Potter films are 'British films'...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Feb 10, 2009)

Even the forums' hardcore cynics like Jef, Orang Utan, Belboid and Tarrannau are rating this.

I have to go and see it asap...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 15, 2009)

I went to see this at The Ritzy this afternoon.  I absolutely loved it and I'm pretty sure b/f enjoyed it as well.

First time in The Ritzy in years as well


----------



## starfish (Feb 15, 2009)

Saw it last, didnt know what to expect. Thought it was a pretty decent though. Is worth seeing.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Feb 16, 2009)

Loved the beginning of the journey, with the two boys.  The rest was _meh_.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 16, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Even the forums' hardcore cynics like Jef, Orang Utan, Belboid and Tarrannau are rating this.
> 
> I have to go and see it asap...




I ignore critics, they're just snobby


----------



## electrogirl (Feb 17, 2009)

Saw it last night. I really enjoyed it, I'm not sure how much I want to see it outside of the cinema though. The big screen definitely enhanced it massively, the sound especially. And the colours.

I think they've overwanked on about it though, because I really liked it, and it was engaging and I was properly scared in some points, but I still expected somthing more I think.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 17, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> Saw it last night. I really enjoyed it



Ditto. Hard hitting Danny Boyle gritty realism transmorphing into a Bollywood thriller - what's not to love?


----------



## belboid (Feb 17, 2009)

The woman on the Kermode Awards just now had some fair crits - it was annoying (and pointless, plotwise) how they changed the game so that ad breaks were taken before he gave the answer, rather than after.

fairly minor quibbles tho, really


----------



## electrogirl (Feb 17, 2009)

belboid said:


> The woman on the Kermode Awards just now had some fair crits - it was annoying (and pointless, plotwise) how they changed the game so that ad breaks were taken before he gave the answer, rather than after.
> 
> fairly minor quibbles tho, really



What did she mean by 'pointless'?

I just saw it as a fairytale. Which isn't a criticism.


----------



## belboid (Feb 17, 2009)

pointless is my word, not hers.  i just mean there was no reason why they should have changed it, no key plot turn that could only happen if the ad breaks were taken at that point.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Feb 17, 2009)

I thought the scene where the kid literally wades through shit in order to get an autograph from Bachan was fantastic.


----------



## electrogirl (Feb 17, 2009)

belboid said:


> pointless is my word, not hers.  i just mean there was no reason why they should have changed it, no key plot turn that could only happen if the ad breaks were taken at that point.



oh right sorry, I misunderstood. 

I agree with you.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 17, 2009)

belboid said:


> pointless is my word, not hers.  i just mean there was no reason why they should have changed it, no key plot turn that could only happen if the ad breaks were taken at that point.



Maybe that's how they do the Indian version of who wants to be a millaire? 

Either way - quit quibbling


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 17, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Even the forums' hardcore cynics like Jef, Orang Utan, Belboid and Tarrannau are rating this.
> 
> I have to go and see it asap...



I was meant to go and see it the day the sky fell down so my mate decided not to come over from west london and to be fair I don't blame him. 

I am sick of seeing this thread come up so have decided now that I am going tomorrow night, regardless of death or disaster. 

This may be my first trip to the cinema on my own!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 17, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> I thought the scene where the kid literally wades through shit in order to get an autograph from Bachan was fantastic.




I liked when they were playing tour guides at the Taj Mahal


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 17, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I was meant to go and see it the day the sky fell down so my mate decided not to come over from west london and to be fair I don't blame him.
> 
> I am sick of seeing this thread come up so have decided now that I am going tomorrow night, regardless of death or disaster.
> 
> This may be my first trip to the cinema on my own!




It's worth it


----------



## Part 2 (Feb 17, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> I thought the scene where the kid literally wades through shit in order to get an autograph from Bachan was fantastic.




Thats the only bit I let my 8 year old watch. He loved it


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 17, 2009)

Part2 said:


> Thats the only bit I let my 8 year old watch. He loved it




Well you know what to do next time he misbehaves then - shove his head down the bog after you've had your morning shit


----------



## Part 2 (Feb 18, 2009)

Just making him go in to brush his teeth afterwards is enough


----------



## gracious (Feb 18, 2009)

i havent read this whole thread, but just wanted to pop in and tell you all that last week i visited the slum where the first scenes of slumdog millionnaire were filmed.


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Feb 18, 2009)

the film was good (alright) i hate the way people are making out over it at the minute though.

its just, annoying.


----------



## electrogirl (Feb 18, 2009)

MightyAphrodite said:


> the film was good (alright) i hate the way people are making out over it at the minute though.
> 
> its just, annoying.



Yeah it's a good, enjoyable film, but I think the people that are totally jizzing themselves over it are going a bit over the top.


----------



## gracious (Feb 18, 2009)

your just jellyos cos i went on a good adventure there


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Feb 18, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> Yeah it's a good, enjoyable film, but I think the people that are totally jizzing themselves over it are going a bit over the top.



eeexxxxxxxx-actly. 


gracious said:


> i went on a good adventure there



yeah you did.


----------



## Melinda (Feb 18, 2009)




----------



## gracious (Feb 18, 2009)

oscars? meh.


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Feb 18, 2009)

gracious said:


> oscars? meh.



i mean my mate oscar,i wont have him spoken ill of


----------



## _pH_ (Feb 18, 2009)

saw this at the weekend. excellent i thought. especially the bit with the poo-pit

now, what's the rest of this thread about?


----------



## Melinda (Feb 18, 2009)

MightyAphrodite said:


> i edited but fuck it .





Need me to edit honey?


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Feb 18, 2009)

Melinda said:


> Need me to edit honey?



pls i tried to PM you


----------



## Melinda (Feb 18, 2009)

Done  

Ive cleaned out my box too.


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Feb 18, 2009)

Melinda said:


> Done
> 
> Ive cleaned out my box too.



 x


----------



## DRINK? (Feb 18, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> Yeah it's a good, enjoyable film, but I think the people that are totally jizzing themselves over it are going a bit over the top.




It ticks a lot of of boxes for the patronising masses always gonna be a dinner party fav 

"its poverty and its raw"


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 18, 2009)

DRINK? said:


> It ticks a lot of of boxes for the patronising masses always gonna be a dinner party fav
> 
> "its poverty and its raw"



IMVHO the Screenplay Writer was the one who appears to have ticked the boxes for the patronised.

Is it time to add Spoilers to some of this _guff_?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 18, 2009)

gracious said:


> i havent read this whole thread, but just wanted to pop in and tell you all that last week i visited the slum where the first scenes of slumdog millionnaire were filmed.




There was an article about it in a paper recently, where some guy is doing tours but "sensitively" and the money is apparently going to the locals 

How much of it he pockets himself I don't know


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 19, 2009)

As good as my word I went to see this tonight.  It was very good, if not entirely faithful to the book.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 19, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> As good as my word I went to see this tonight.  It was very good, if not entirely faithful to the book.




yeah, but how many films are?


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 19, 2009)

Yeah, like fuck did Ben Hur see j33bus.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 19, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> Yeah, like fuck did Ben Hur see j33bus.


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 19, 2009)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


>



I thought you'd like that  ...N_N schweeetie X


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 19, 2009)

DRINK? said:


> It ticks a lot of of boxes for the patronising masses always gonna be a dinner party fav
> 
> "its poverty and its raw"



Have to agree. And its also a disgrace how little the real stars of the film got. And how the likes of the slimy Danny Boyle tried to justify that.
Sad that they couldnt find anybody in India to play the role when hes grown up and on who wants to be a millionaire.....Strange that what with their being over a billion people in India....Still if Danny Boyles daughter prefered somebody from Harrow who are we to argue eh.
Loveleen Tandan who co-directed the film with the wanker Danny Boyle seems to have been missing from all the prize givings....wonder why that could be ?


----------



## Gromit (Feb 19, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> Have to agree. And its also a disgrace how little the real stars of the film got. And how the likes of the slimy Danny Boyle tried to justify that.
> Sad that they couldnt find anybody in India to play the role when hes grown up and on who wants to be a millionaire.....Strange that what with their being over a billion people in India....Still if Danny Boyles daughter prefered somebody from Harrow who are we to argue eh.
> Loveleen Tandan who co-directed the film with the wanker Danny Boyle seems to have been missing from all the prize givings....wonder why that could be ?


 
Actors in india are trained for Bollywood films where they are all buff, heroric and athletic looking. Hardly the image require for role of weedy, starved, living from hand to mouth slumboy. 

Wheras skinny lanky Harrow boy was just the ticket. I don't see the issue.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Feb 19, 2009)

His accent sounded like he grew up in England not India.
He spoke exactly like a lot of my Manc cousins. Just poor acting really.


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 19, 2009)

.


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 19, 2009)

Marius said:


> Actors in india are trained for Bollywood films where they are all buff, heroric and athletic looking. Hardly the image require for role of weedy, starved, living from hand to mouth slumboy.
> 
> Wheras skinny lanky Harrow boy was just the ticket. I don't see the issue.



You dont see the issue of not being able to find an Indian actor in India to play the role? Did you enjoy Gandhi? 
And who said anything about getting a bollywood actor anyway? Bad enough having anil kapoor in it.


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 19, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> His accent sounded like he grew up in England not India.
> He spoke exactly like a lot of my Manc cousins. Just poor acting really.



Have to agree didnt think he really made much effort on the accent front..


----------



## belboid (Feb 19, 2009)

Marius said:


> I don't see the issue.



the only issue is baldie being a pisspoor troll.  and not even an original pisspoor troll either, poor bugger


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 19, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> You dont see the issue of not being able to find an Indian actor in India to play the role? Did you enjoy Gandhi?


Ben Kingsley was born Krishna Bhanji


----------



## softybabe (Feb 20, 2009)

Just been to see this, I loved it!


off to see Notorious with the youngman...hope it lives up to expectation


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 20, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Ben Kingsley was born Krishna Bhanji



And?


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 20, 2009)

Some people seem to think he was a white actor with a tan


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 20, 2009)

belboid said:


> the only issue is baldie being a pisspoor troll.  and not even an original pisspoor troll either, poor bugger



That might be the only issue for you belboid,which is preety sad.
But for other people there are more real issues.
But i guess for people with your shallow liberal politics a feel good movie about poverty in India is just great.
Never mind the fact hat one of the real stars is sleeping in a tent with their father (who has tb) while dev patel the boy from Harrow hangs out with Sienna Miller in LA.
And Danny Boyle what more can i say....


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 20, 2009)

I've met Danny Boyle - he's a nice fella


----------



## tarannau (Feb 20, 2009)

Well I certainly look forward to Balder's future campaigns taking Hollywood to task for not choosing enough genuine Germans to play Nazis in war films, followed by his his tireless crusade against Bollywood movies for being a bit unrealistic and not accurately representing the life of the poor in India

Dappy tryhard idiot.


----------



## belboid (Feb 20, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> That might be the only issue for you belboid,which is preety sad.
> But for other people there are more real issues.
> But i guess for people with your shallow liberal politics a feel good movie about poverty in India is just great.
> Never mind the fact hat one of the real stars is sleeping in a tent with their father (who has tb) while dev patel the boy from Harrow hangs out with Sienna Miller in LA.
> And Danny Boyle what more can i say....


oh please, your sanctimonious nonsense is almost as convincing as an episode of the a-team, tho i think even murdock would have found you a bit daft.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Feb 20, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> ...And its also a disgrace how little the real stars of the film got. And how the likes of the slimy Danny Boyle tried to justify that...


Just wondering, how much do you think the youngest actors should have been paid?  Ballpark figure, like?

From what I've read, e.g. from the Times:




			
				Times article said:
			
		

> He and Christian Colson, the film's producer, say *they paid the two children for 30 days' acting, found them places at an English-language school, and are giving the families a monthly stipend.
> 
> They have also set up trust funds that the children can access once they graduate. *
> 
> ...


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5772880.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

Well, I think there should possibly be an allegedly in there, relating to the builder who ran off with the money.

How much would unknown British child actors be paid for similar parts in films?  Don't forget, it's not like the Harry Potter kids, which were lead roles, the main lead roles were the grown up ones, the small children's roles were key, yes, but they weren't leading roles.  

Don't you think that e.g. on Harry Potter, kids playing supporting cast roles would have been paid a day rate for their work, not the multi-millions that the actors playing the main characters earned?  (Although appearances in sequels might have bumped up their fees in subsequent films, after the success of the first one, but who knows, they might have been contractually low.)  Or what about child actors in Billy Elliott?  That was another kind of obscure movie that was kind of unexpected hit.  

Would the actors in that have gone back and said, yeah, you know how this surprisingly turned out to be an unexpected hit, well, I want to turn back the clock and renegotiate the terms and pay for the work I did last year.

I don't think it's a case of them being ripped off because they're uneducated Indian children, or their families are poverty-striken.  

If anything, the film makers are looking after the children's best interests.  They paid them for their work, they are continuing to pay for their education, and putting money in trust funds for when the children grow up.  Do you honestly think that if the filmmakers entrusted a load of money to their parents that they would save it and the kids would see a rupee of it by the time they reached 18?

It said that when the parents complained of being evicted, the filmmakers (who weren't contractually obliged to do so) sent money for a new home, but that money has gone missing, the children still don't have a new home.  I've since read that the filmmakers are going to physically provide homes for them to live, which will be signed over to the children provided that the parents ensure the children complete their education.

And I also read that the monies that were paid to one of the families has already been spent, none of it saved by the parents for the child, because the father has spent it on his medical treatment for TB.  Now, you might argue, fair enough, the child might want his father to get medical treatment paid for out of the child's money, but it isn't the father's right to spend it.  

What would happen in a similar scenario in the US, a child star, parents have control over their business affairs, the parents spend the money on their medical care and use it to fund their lifestyles.  There would be an outcry if the parents of, say, an American child star if the family was misappropriating their earnings, if they were using the child's earnings to pay for the parents' medical bills, and they would likely be advised to 'divorce' their parents double-quick-smart.  Why shouldn't an Indian child be similarly protected from having their money siphoned off to pay for the family's lifestyle or their parents' avariciousness, don't the Indian children deserve the similar protections that American child stars would get.  

I've also read that the families were preventing the children from attending the Oscars and originally demanding that money equivalent to what would have been spent on airfares should be paid to them.  What's that all about?  Just because the parents throw a hissy fit and decide to try to deprive their children of attendance at a glitzy event that recognises their work, the parents insist that they should be paid for the privilege of being so spiteful and greedy?  

In a way, I feel sorry for the filmmakers, they've kind of unleashed a money-grabbing monster in the parents that's never going to be satisfied.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Feb 20, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> That might be the only issue for you belboid,which is preety sad.
> But for other people there are more real issues.
> But i guess for people with your shallow liberal politics a feel good movie about poverty in India is just great.
> Never mind the fact hat *one of the real stars is sleeping in a tent with their father (who has tb) *while dev patel the boy from Harrow hangs out with Sienna Miller in LA.
> And Danny Boyle what more can i say....


Yep, and from what I've read that father has stolen/misappropriated his child's earnings to pay for medical treatment for his TB.  Yes, he might need medical treatment, but the money wasn't earned by him, and wasn't his to spend.

And I'm not sure whether it was the same family, or another one, that was sent money for a new home, and the money promptly disappeared and the family are still homeless.  Funny that.

The children need protecting from being ripped off by their own families and other vultures.


----------



## cliche guevara (Feb 22, 2009)

We watched this last night, I thought it was massively overrated. I enjoyed the first half of the film where they were very young, but as they got older it got more and more unbelievable. The whole gameshow thing just pissed me off, and wasn't a great framing device imo. It also seemed pretty patronising a lot of the time. I fail to see why it has been nominated for so many oscars tonight, none of the actors were great, and neither was the story.


----------



## gracious (Feb 22, 2009)

im upset to hear the stories above about the child actors' situations. i would like to think that the money which has been appropriated has been distributed throughout their extended families to spread some of their sudden wealth to other poor relatives. i dont know if it is the case, but it would fit in with indian societal norms which value extended family very highly and generally tend to favour members of the family that are higher in the family heirarchy (older people and men generally). 

having said that (and im writing this from india having spent 6 weeks here in major cities doing my economics phd research) i think slumdog is a great representation of india - yes the game show story is unrealistic for 99.9999% of slumdwellers to dream of, but 'making it' doesnt feel that impossible in places like mumbai. even dharavi - the slum where the original scenes are shot - is full of all kinds of industries, people working, making their way in lives. im not saying its easy, but india now has a lot more opportunities than india 10 years ago. i loved the way they included the mobile phones in the story - mobile telephony is a revolution in india.. there were 15million new subscribers in january this year (there are like 50m in total in the UK) and everyone has got a phone. more and more people have a tv also since digital took off around the gulf war. these things are giving people aspirations and means of filling those aspirations. i think the film is timely in that it portrays a hope that genuinely exists in india, even if it does it in a fairytale way.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 23, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> The children need protecting from being ripped off by their own families and other vultures.


   The English-speaking, Anglo-Saxon world has, in world terms, a most peculiar culture in relation to 'family'. I really don't think the rest of the world need pay too much attention to attempts from this direction to map a moral direction for them.

It could be argued that one of the few aspects of this society that's even more peculiar (than the attitude to family) is the acceptance of media as purveyors of accuracy and truth.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 23, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> The children need protecting from being ripped off by their own families and other vultures.


 
If i was a kid with an ill dad and you asked me how I'd like to spend my money. Keeping my father alive would be quite high on my shopping list. 

I'd feel far from ripped off. In fact I'd be very glad I'd been given the opportunity to help whereas other kids just get to watch their father die of TB. It would be like an answer to my prayers.

You'd rather have the cash and live in an ophanage would you?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2009)

Danny Boyle's at my work now and we've been urged to go out and cheer him for the balconies like he's some kind of prodigal son


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 5, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Danny Boyle's at my work now and we've been urged to go out and cheer him for the balconies like he's some kind of prodigal son


 



Have they asked you to bow yet?  That's when I'd start to worry


----------



## lyra_k (Mar 19, 2009)

Saw this at the local fleapit which was good as it has a proper old-style big screen, not the teatowel-sized screen of the multiplex at the mall.  It was visually stunning and loved the music and the kids, but even allowing for the Bollywood plot hokiness (understood), thought that the continuing romance between Jamal and Latika was missing any real passion or feeling, just didn't feel convinced.  The relationship between the brothers was much more interesting than the central romantic plot, I thought.  No great desire to see it again, but it was a clever package all in all.


----------



## tbaldwin (Mar 29, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> Yep, and from what I've read that father has stolen/misappropriated his child's earnings to pay for medical treatment for his TB.  Yes, he might need medical treatment, but the money wasn't earned by him, and wasn't his to spend.
> 
> And I'm not sure whether it was the same family, or another one, that was sent money for a new home, and the money promptly disappeared and the family are still homeless.  Funny that.
> 
> The children need protecting from being ripped off by their own families and other vultures.



I havent replied to this before. Words genuinelly failed me for once. Your attitude is scarey as hell.
If you know anything about TB drugs you will know that nobody in their right mind would take them if they didnt need them. Dont you think the kids would want to save their parents lives more than anything else in this world?

The film company and Danny Boyle seem to have acted shamefully but i am sure that people like you Ann will continue to see them as overgenerous.


----------



## tbaldwin (Mar 30, 2009)

Marius said:


> If i was a kid with an ill dad and you asked me how I'd like to spend my money. Keeping my father alive would be quite high on my shopping list.
> 
> I'd feel far from ripped off. In fact I'd be very glad I'd been given the opportunity to help whereas other kids just get to watch their father die of TB. It would be like an answer to my prayers.
> 
> You'd rather have the cash and live in an ophanage would you?



Good post.
Interesting i heard today the young girl has just done an ad in India. And they paid her more for it than she got for doing the film.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Mar 31, 2009)

Originally Posted by AnnO'Neemus said:
			
		

> Yep, and from what I've read that father has stolen/misappropriated his child's earnings to pay for medical treatment for his TB. Yes, he might need medical treatment, but the money wasn't earned by him, and wasn't his to spend.
> 
> And I'm not sure whether it was the same family, or another one, that was sent money for a new home, and the money promptly disappeared and the family are still homeless. Funny that.
> 
> The children need protecting from being ripped off by their own families and other vultures.





tbaldwin said:


> I havent replied to this before. Words genuinelly failed me for once. Your attitude is scarey as hell.
> If you know anything about TB drugs you will know that nobody in their right mind would take them if they didnt need them. Dont you think the kids would want to save their parents lives more than anything else in this world?
> 
> The film company and Danny Boyle seem to have acted shamefully but i am sure that people like you Ann will continue to see them as overgenerous.


Yes, the boy might want that, and I'm sure that's the case.

But the fact is, legally speaking, it's the boy's money, and the family don't have a right to help themselves to it.  That would be the same in the US, if say, Britney Spears as a Disney child star was earning heaps and one of her parents was ill and needed the money to pay for healthcare.  Or if one of the supporting actors in Harry Potter had a mother who needed some experimental cancer drug that wasn't available on the NHS, they wouldn't automatically be entitled to help themselves to the money either.  Yes, I'm sure that in both those cases you would reasonably think it was morally right to use the money for that purpose, but there's a difference between what's morally right, and what's technically, legally correct.  And there ought to be some safeguards in place to protect the child and his or her earnings.  The child's interests would be protected in the US and the UK, there would be lawyers and accountants saying, hey, is this reasonable, is this justifiable, legally speaking, it's the child's money, and their future needs to be provided for, what if they need the money in future?

If this was a legal case, and I have a legal background, moral stuff wouldn't come into it, child gets paid for acting work, father appropriate's child earnings to pay for medical bills, technically, legally speaking, that's actually theft.  If the child wants to gift money, fine, but someone needs to be looking out for the child's interests.  I mean, where do you draw the line?  An uncle shows up, he's also got TB and needs medication, and it turns out his wife and four children also have it.  And then an aunty turns up, and she's got cancer.  And another cousin turns up with polio.  And a second cousin turns up who needs a hearing aid.  And the second cousin's mother-in-law has gall stones and needs surgery, and her daughter needs a kidney transplant.  

I mean, really, morally speaking, they should all get medical treatment, but the child actor needs someone to look out for their interests and say, hey, what happens if in three years time you get TB, but you've spent all your money paying for medication for relatives, and there's no money to save your life? 

And from what I've read, the film company has provided for them fairly generously.  They worked for a month.  They were paid a month's wages.  In addition to that, provision was made in the form of a trust to pay for their education.  On top of which, the film company was contacted because one of the family's had lost their home.  So the film company sent money to buy them a new home, which went - ahem - 'missing'.  So the parents couldn't even be trusted to put a new roof over their child's head.  So the film company stepped in to say that they would rehouse the children in apartments and put the properties in trust, and only sign them over when the children had completed their education.

The children need to be protected from exploitation and having their earnings siphoned off my every Tom and Dikshit and Haroon.

Knowing the effect of TB drugs is neither here nor there to the actual legal status of the situation, you're obviously projecting some of your own experiences here.

And for the record you're fucking well out of order to call me a Nazi, so you're going on ignore, you cunt.


----------



## Lily (Mar 31, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> And for the record you're fucking well out of order to call me a Nazi, so you're going on ignore, you cunt.



Where were you called a Nazi. I've re-read the thread and I can't find it.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Mar 31, 2009)

Lily said:


> Where were you called a Nazi. I've re-read the thread and I can't find it.


It was on a different thread, but in relation to this.


----------



## tbaldwin (Mar 31, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> It was on a different thread, but in relation to this.



You werent but i did say and i totally stand by it that i find your views on this disgusting. 
The thread if people want to read it is on ukpolitics concerning charity directors pay where you mentioned eugenics.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 7, 2009)

Sad news that Mohammed Ismail the real life father of the young boy who played Salim in the film passed away from TB last week.


----------

