Its very sad that i watched this movie once it became a legit oscar contender. Because one stops judging for what it is and starts judging it for if its worth winning or even being nominated for the top prize. And sadly, thats what happened. So before i continue any further, I'll say this much that the movie ranks as an A- for me.

The film is beautifully choreographed and probably even better acted. While Dev patel's performance in the film is something i find questionable, many of the supporting characters (including the youngest salim and jamal and the begger leader) deserve oscars for their very realistic and believable portrayals). The movie itself had a brilliant premise and like Neil already said, the idea that the boy looked at events in his life to answer each question was also quite interesting.

But there are certain placs where the movie truly fails which is why i don't think it should be an oscar contender at all.

a) Looking at your life to find answers is fine. But the fact that each question somehow triggered one of the most important memories in this boy's quest to run away and then find the girl again bordered on the realm of unbelievable coincidences. But .. i managed to excuse this.

b) I'm not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but watching this movie felt like watching Forrest Gump, a story of someone going from one event to another. The reason why i point this out is because much like forrest gump, the film is more about a man's journey than a constant unfolding of his life and story ... the story and the theme in general comes together at the end. Sadly, Forrest Gump was meant to be light hearted and wile each scene was significant in the movie, it was never meant to be taken overly seriously at its surface. Slumdog sadly is and the major disconnect from scene to scene became quite prevalent.

c) I honestly thought the use of English in the movie was for the western audiences to understand whats going on. Then with the switch from hindi to english made me realize these characters are actually talking in english. Which is fine ... i don't have an issue. But these 'slumdogs' who've spent their entire life working or begging or something or the other got time to master a language? I mean the simple fact that they initially spoke in broken english and then improved is testament to this. I'm sorry but this just bothered me quite a bit.

d) A very small nit picky thing but i seriously doubt anyone ever taught Lathika how to drive, espicially a manual car.

e) The fuck was wrong with the shit ass hip hop music that suddenly showed up in the film from time to time. SOunded totally off.

I personally feel that if the movie kept just about every scene in this movie but just rearranged them for a better structure, it could vastly improve. For now, i'm personally of the opinion that its oscar status and its love from many people here mainly exists because its a well made portrayal of people who lived a truly miserable life that none of us are accostumed to seeing and another beautiful portrayal of an unfamiliar culture. I stand by this.

A-

I'm so rooting for this to defy KJ's preconceived notions and not turn into another Juno or Crash.

AKA a movie I don't have to hear get dragged through the mud every 2 seconds on the forum while I "stand by it."

You really should've knocked on wood. People really turned on this and Benjamin Button. I assume that this did not happen with The Dark Knight and Wall-E, but going through these threads I wouldn't be shocked.

Anyways, it seems to me that some people find the film's juxtaposition of "Slumdog" (bottom-of-the-rung poverty) and "Millionaire" (fairy tale) to be jarring/cheesy/in bad taste, while others, such as myself, were impressed by Boyle's ability to juggle genres with finesse. Danny Boyle has always liked to mix up genres, going all the way back to Shallow Grave (one of his best films, because here he doesn't stumble with the conclusion) and while in some cases he's crumbled under his own weight, here his direction is undeniably strong throughout.

People complaining that the film is in bad taste, and that Hollywood is trying to glamorize poverty seem to assume that those who live on less than a dollar a day (somewhere around half of the world's population?) are by default constantly miserable. It's a nice, holier-than-thou attitude that scoffs at the prospect of poor people having a happy ending, a subtly myopic view. Or maybe people just love to hate on the Best Picture frontrunner, as if they'd be happy if any of the nominees took it's place.

In a way, I feel like the film's tremendous success in Hollywood is because Slumdog Millionaire demonstrates just how well Hollywood/Bollywood can mix together. Spielberg has to be enthused that people have gotten so behind this union - isn't Dreamworks teaming with Bollywood?

The thing is that I wouldn't really call it a mix of Hollywood/Bollywood. It's really a Bollywood film with a British style.

Now, since Bollywood does copy a lot from Hollywood, there is a Hollywood presence in the film but it's not a mixture of Hollywood/Bollywood.

There definitely seems to be a link between whether you've spent time in Mumbai and how much you like the film. The brown press has been pretty chilly to the film Moviedude.

I don't think much can be made of the hatred of Munich over geopolitical issues and dislike of Slumdog regarding authenticity even within the context of its dickensesque story.

And as far as authorship, Mira Nair could have directed it and I think the issues would have mostly remained intact.

I don't think much can be made of the hatred of Munich over geopolitical issues and dislike of Slumdog regarding authenticity even within the context of its dickensesque story.

And as far as authorship, Mira Nair could have directed it and I think the issues would have mostly remained intact.

Here's the thing though, I don't see much being made of Boyle as the director of an Indian film. Certainly not even 1/100th of the uproar Spielberg caused when he helmed The Color Purple.

Proper criticism of Slumdog seems to fall in two distinct camps, with a bit of overlapping.

There are those who simply don't think the film is up to snuff. It's all quality issues, deepened by an award season simply rolling over dead for the film.

Then there are those who has issues with the Indian story being told, how it's not representive of Mumbai, and that it exists in a weird hybrid of places, bright fable/harsh reality. But in the end being cohesive in neither.

Ok, so let's be hypothetical for a quick minute. Suppose Fox Searchlight hadn't bought this, and Warner Bros. dumped it in the Spring. The film still got great reviews, but failed to make a splash at the box office, therefore eliminating it's immortal BP-lock. Had this been the case, I feel the film would be getting a much kinder reception on here, as conversation seems to have become drastically more negative by the week. In this alternative reality (where Benjamin Button was the front runner, which might be enough for people on here to swear off Fincher, a shocking concept), I think people would accept Boyle's hybrid tones as part of his essential style.

The central plot mechanism of "Slumdog Millionaire" - Jamal (Dev Patel), a poor kid from Mumbai, overcomes his ragamuffin past and achieves fame, wealth, and selfhood by answering questions on a high-stakes game show - feels both cheesy and rigid. The movie is a Dickensian fable, but didn't David Copperfield have to work his way up the ladder? As Jamal thinks over the questions put to him on the show, moments from his early life float through his mind, and some wrenching event delivers the right answer to him. Apart from a nagging implausibility - how could every question link up with an old memory? - I object to the way that the director, Danny Boyle, orchestrates Jamal's life. Everything is seen in a flash - the boy's mother is beaten to death, a man is set on fire, tiny goddesses appear out of nowhere - and nothing is prepared, explained, or understood. As slum children, Jamal and his friends are enchantingly beautiful, but the supersaturated color makes not just the kids but every surface and texture shine glamorously, including the piles of garbage that Jamal and his brother live among. Boyle has created what looks like a jumpy, hyper-edited commercial for poverty - he uses the squalor and violence touristically, as an aspect of the fabulous.

Almost every movie, of course, is a fantasy, or a fable, or a fairy tale of one kind or another. In a great movie, though, narrative and technological magic combine to produce heightened intimations of the real, and that ecstatic merging of magic and reality is what imprints the movie on our emotional memory. Besides the children, what I will remember of "Slumdog Millionaire" is a disorderly exploitation of disorder, a kind of visual salad of glowing rotten fruit, constantly tossed.

...maybe if i watched this and came out thinking wow India is cool and full of happy endings I'd have an issue with its style (and would also smack myself for being retarded).

Here's the thing though, I don't see much being made of Boyle as the director of an Indian film. Certainly not even 1/100th of the uproar Spielberg caused when he helmed The Color Purple.

Proper criticism of Slumdog seems to fall in two distinct camps, with a bit of overlapping.

There are those who simply don't think the film is up to snuff. It's all quality issues, deepened by an award season simply rolling over dead for the film.

Then there are those who has issues with the Indian story being told, how it's not representive of Mumbai, and that it exists in a weird hybrid of places, bright fable/harsh reality. But in the end being cohesive in neither.