Slumdog Millionaire by Danny Boyle

[Kirk Gillock]

The new Danny Boyle film, Slumdog Millionaire, looks really good and it's getting some great reviews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIzbwV7on6Q

Your .02 cents? :)

[Skribbleman]

I was lucky enough to just catch this at the AFI film fest. Wow. Blew me away. Danny Boyle did a talk prior to the screening. He mentioned it was shot on a prototype digital camera "like the Red camera" as he put it that was very mobile and unobtrusive. He also mentioned using a canon dslr shooting at 11 frames a second for some scenes. Very inspiring evening.

[jpeck]

I really enjoyed this film.

9/10

[triplej96]

Looks great and Sigur Ros in the trailer, awesome!

[MattinSTL]

As I was contemplating the current blockbuster... I couldn't help wishing this was already out in my area.

[Solomon Chase]

As I was contemplating the current blockbuster... I couldn't help wishing this was already out in my area.
Same here. Wanted to see it with my brother today.

[triplej96]

As I was contemplating the current blockbuster... I couldn't help wishing this was already out in my area.

I hear that Matt. I was hoping that Tivoli Theater would at least have it :(.

[Mars United]

Just saw this tonight. Great movie! Highly recommend it.

The camera is actually one that has been out for at least 2 years: the SI-2K. The SI-2K Mini to be precise. 70% was shot with the SI and the rest was film or, as mentioned a DSLR.

It looked fantastic. Never once did I have the feeling of "video" that I had throughout Apocalypto. Pretty difficult to tell the film from the SI-2K footage, except that the film had grain. This movie, more than any other I've seen, has shown what digital can do in the right hands. Sorry, but part of the reason I went to see it is because I have a couple of the SI cams and wanted to see what Danny Boyle could do with it.

But the movie, whatever it would have been shot on was a joy. Just remember that at heart it is a love story and a feel-good sort of film.

[Zak Forsman]

i knew about the SI-2K going in and this was one of those films that reminds you how quickly the tools are forgotten when you've got a compelling story.

[AJ Brooks]

Looks great and Sigur Ros in the trailer, awesome!

Ting Tings & Sigur Ros... nice.

That was a really good trailer, btw.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

The trailer sold it for me. Can't wait to see it now. Should be out by the middle of December here. :thumbup:

MAH

[Matty_g]

Never once did I have the feeling of "video"

A lot of the film was pretty gainy in the theater i saw it in. And it looked NOTHING like film grain.

still a wonderful picture and beautifully shot. I kind of like how they seemed to just not give a fuck.

[Zak Forsman]

yes, lots of noise in the blue channel from time to time.

[ZFarms Productions]

i just saw Slumdog Millionaire. I was absolutely blown away by it. I was really drawn into the story and found myself wanting Jamal to win, and wanting to find how what led him there and what he had to do. I found the cinematography to be beautiful. I love the way it was shot. This movie needs to win Best Picture. Boyle still keeps a great track record.

[medaocdp]

Saw it on Camerimage Festival and I was blown away by its cinematography.
I could tell that there were a lot of digital shots in it, but it didn't pull me out of the story at all.
Danny Boyle surely knows how to put a movie together.

[Mark Johnson]

Just got back from catching this in Claremont. Jeez-Loueez. I don't like to use phrases like "I was blown away by it" but I was blown away by it. If you are a filmmaker and appreciate story and characters, you will be in for a couple hours of pure heaven. Some really amazingly great editing here too.

[Lawsuit_Boy]

My girlfriend and her friend are seeing it tomorrow at a sneak screening. I was going to go, but unfortunately, her friend only had one ticket. And it's safe to say that I'm the one who has been looking forward to this film more (and for much longer). Woe is me. :( It'll be my second Danny Boyle theatrical experience. Saw Sunshine three times in cinema, and probably 50 times at home. :beer:

But, I'll get to see it on the 19th. So excited!!!

[Lawsuit_Boy]

Update: seeing it tonight at the Cedar Lee in Cleveland for an exclusive screening. So pumped!

[ZFarms Productions]

Cedar Lee is a pretty cool theater. Been a couple of times. They usually get independents and stuff there.

[Lawsuit_Boy]

Verdict: Slumdog was just as wonderful as I was expecting. :)

[Lawsuit_Boy]

Cedar Lee is a pretty cool theater. Been a couple of times. They usually get independents and stuff there.

One of my favorite theaters in the area. Their beer, wine, and chocolate selection is remarkable as well. :beer:

[smashedburrito]

Amazing movie all around. Took the best from Millions and 28 Days Later to make an amazing film.

[Kirk Gillock]

Just saw it today with my brothers. Everyone enjoyed it a lot. :thumbsup:

Overall a very entertaining film. But not the "amazing" film I was expecting.


The dance number was fun and a great way to end the film. :)

[andreww]

The story was fantastic, and the cinematography truly did add another layer to the story. In my opinion, most other films shot in that style are simply distracting, but the locations and story really supported the cinematography and created a theme to itself. Fantastic film.

[ZFarms Productions]

I saw this again the other day. Held up just as much, even though I knew what was gonna be happening.

I payed attention to the camera more this time. I really loved the use of dutch angles. A lot of times people use it just to use it, but here it was motivated and worked. I loved the shot of Jamal and Salim at the construction site, where you see Jamal's reflection in Salim's sunglasses.

The lighting of the film was amazing. I love the use of colors.

Editing was great.

The music used in the film was very well picked. One of the best soundtracks of late.

[bkgarceau]

The film was great overall!!

I went with my family (parents, brother), knowing it wasn't there type of film, but they all enjoyed just about as much as I did. I agree with many of the thoughts above, the story is fun and the cinematography and editing is eclectic and well carried out! It was joy to see this film, one that rises so far above many movies earlier in the year!

Good work all around!!

[ChipG]

Saw it tonight. DB's shock values worked again.

Loved it!

I think it is so great to be able to make a movie with no big actors and focus on the story and tell it in an amazing way.

I'm sure most the indes know by now a large part of it was shot on a si mini 2k and the really stuttery images were from a cannon dslr at 11 fps...

They could have shot this movie with a DVX 100 and it would be just as good!

[spidey]

very good film I enjoyed this very much and can see why its up for so much. visual great. capativating story. reminded me of his story telling from trainspotting.

[Stephen Mick]

Best film I've seen so far this year.

[Big Bad]

Loved it!

[LuckyStudio 13]

it's alright.

[ZFarms Productions]

it's alright.

what about it is just "alright" to you. i'm not arguing your opinion, i just want some supportive reasoning...

[Brandon Rice]

Great film! Very well told story... was simple (no special effects, car chases, etc) but it completely drew me in from the beginning...

Easily in my top three this year.

[Stephen Mick]

I thought the performances, by (I understand) mostly unknown talent, were unbelievable, including (and especially) the kids.

[Zak Forsman]

the kids were excellent. the lead actor's british accent snuck through a lot, though. despite that, it was a very earnest performance.

[spidey]

want to see good performances watch chop shop

[Brandon Rice]

the kids were excellent. the lead actor's british accent snuck through a lot, though. despite that, it was a very earnest performance.

never noticed... I thought he was from India... lol

[LuckyStudio 13]

what about it is just "alright" to you. i'm not arguing your opinion, i just want some supportive reasoning...

story wise, its your typical Hollywood style story, its not compelling enough for me. sorry.

[KyleProhaska]

This film was amazing. I was blown away. I was engaged from the first moments of the film until the very end. Excellent acting by a virtually unknown talent (playing Jamal). The acting of the children was remarkable to say the least, some of the finest performances of the film. The world created in the film was very detailed and I found myself genuinely upset and even angry at some of the circumstances the characters found themselves in. Every moment with tension was crafted brilliantly.

This film might sneak past The Dark Knight as my favorite film of last year. I can't wait to get the film when it's on Bluray.

[CallaghanFilms]

This is fast becoming one of those films that it is considered uncouth not to adore.

Being an uncouth mother poo pooer myself - I gotta say, "What's the big deal?!":huh:

The plot was way too coincidental. I'm talkin' beyond "Running-into-the-same-person-over-and-over-again-amongst-eight-million-New-Yorkers" coincidental...

Hell, it was even beyond "The-last-season-of-Quantum-Leap-where-suddenly-Sam-only-leaps-into-celebrities-or-famous-notables" coincidental.

Come on, how could each and every question on the Who Wants to be a Millionaire show mirror or mark an all-important point in his life?! I am a wealth of trivial information, but I don't remember where I picked up any of the useless shi* stored in the ol' Callaghan cerebral CPU.

And I don't buy it being a higher power (Shiva, Allah, Fate, whatever) intervening.

Don't get me wrong, the cinematography was great and the acting was respectable - and I LOVED how the host said the word "millionaire"...

But as a story guy first and foremost, I can't see all the hoopla.:huh:

[ChipG]

They have been playing the Slomdog song on the radio about 10 times a day now, it's a great tune! Love it!

"All I wanna do is, (boom, boom, boom) take your money"

Most writers don't like it because they put them self too far out there then realize no one else is there with them, Slumdog was very cautious about this. What a great movie!

I'm going to see it again, I love the way the story was told!

[Stephen Mick]

You know, I was going to write a big long post about why I feel the complete opposite as you, Cal. But instead I'll just say that once I connected with the characters, the coincidences (while there) didn't take me out of the film experience.

SPOILERS

I guess I also realized that, as essentially a "Bollywood"-style film, these moments of conincidence fell somewhat into the realm of fantasy. So as part of the larger genre, they didn't feel out of place.

As to the "answers," I'd say one way to look at it is that yes, he did cheat. Even though we never know for sure, when he says, "…wasn't I lucky that they only asked questions for which I knew the answers," I think you could interpret that as an admission. (Not saying that's how I read it, but one could read it that way.)

Oh, and I've already started saying "millionaire" just like the host. You should try it. :D

--SM

[ChipG]

He didn't know them all, he had to guess on the last question.

[KyleProhaska]

Another interested point is that 20 Million Indian Rupees is only about $500,000 USD.

[ChipG]

$400,000

[sean90291]

SPOILERS:

I never buy into a story where--and it's a common device--the protagonist chooses his life-long love at the age of seven. I mean, come on. Who do you even remember from age 7, let alone how could you choose one person to fall in love with?

Then add to this problem the fact that when he does find her as a young adult, she looks like a super model. Hm.

It's a fairy tale. Right from jumping in the deep pit of excrement, to winning all that money because of the incredible coincidences between his life and the questions asked, to all the bad guys get their comeuppance, while the good guys win.

But I did enjoy the film, even if I didn't love it thoroughly. I think it depends on what you expect from your movies. A good lesson learned is that audience members DO love fairy tales. So you can make all the bleak, serious dramas you want, but the films that offer make-believe will sell tickets.

[Stephen Mick]

And a fairy tale well-told and well-made is just as enjoyable a film as any other. It just may not be everyone's cup of tea.

[Brandon Rice]

This is fast becoming one of those films that it is considered uncouth not to adore.

Being an uncouth mother poo pooer myself - I gotta say, "What's the big deal?!":huh:

The plot was way too coincidental. I'm talkin' beyond "Running-into-the-same-person-over-and-over-again-amongst-eight-million-New-Yorkers" coincidental...

Hell, it was even beyond "The-last-season-of-Quantum-Leap-where-suddenly-Sam-only-leaps-into-celebrities-or-famous-notables" coincidental.

Come on, how could each and every question on the Who Wants to be a Millionaire show mirror or mark an all-important point in his life?! I am a wealth of trivial information, but I don't remember where I picked up any of the useless shi* stored in the ol' Callaghan cerebral CPU.

And I don't buy it being a higher power (Shiva, Allah, Fate, whatever) intervening.

Don't get me wrong, the cinematography was great and the acting was respectable - and I LOVED how the host said the word "millionaire"...

But as a story guy first and foremost, I can't see all the hoopla.:huh:

Well... since I do buy into a higher power, maybe that's why the film worked for me?

I don't know... honestly I don't like it because EVERYONE likes it... I didn't know ANYTHING about the film when I saw it... just that Danny Boyle had directed it...

[Brandon Rice]

SPOILERS:

I never buy into a story where--and it's a common device--the protagonist chooses his life-long love at the age of seven. I mean, come on. Who do you even remember from age 7, let alone how could you choose one person to fall in love with?

Then add to this problem the fact that when he does find her as a young adult, she looks like a super model. Hm.

Thing is, they went through a traumatic experience together... and while they were kids he didn't even feel an attraction to her like he did when she was older... he just had a genuine care for her.

[Qzar]

SPOILERS:

I never buy into a story where--and it's a common device--the protagonist chooses his life-long love at the age of seven. I mean, come on. Who do you even remember from age 7, let alone how could you choose one person to fall in love with?

Then add to this problem the fact that when he does find her as a young adult, she looks like a super model. Hm.


SPOILERS KIND OF:

For an orphan child who had no one else to really care about or feel any love towards (other than his brother... but that's a different kind of love) I'm sure his relationship with Latika had to have created a much stronger bond than your average 7 year old crush. Not just to mention that he felt responsible for abandoning her and in the end it was more than just love... I felt there was a much deeper relationship in there that definitely would have survived time.

END SPOILERS


I loved the movie, it was amazingly tight and well structured. I felt very engaged with the characters and was completely behind the fairy tale elements in the plot. The cinematography was stunning. Danny Boyle definitely took a risk with Anthony Dod Mantle but he definitely nailed it. For someone with such little influence from Hollywood, Anthony is incredibly technically solid while still having one of the most unique visual styles around. I loved the camera they used, I recommend everyone go to a book store and look up this month's American Cinematographer... truly inspirational. He is the Christopher Doyle of the west.

[sean90291]

My point is that a bond between two very young children who undergo a trauma is not going to amount to romantic love. Maybe when they meet years later, a love will develop, especially because they have some early history they share. But I didn't see that in this movie. It was much more the typical scenario of the little boy who has decided who he will marry when he's a child. I don't buy it, that's all. No matter what the trauma. It's just an overused device. I've seen it in a lot of movies, and I didn't buy it then either. Fact: no one in real life has, at age 7, fallen in love with the one person they will marry in adulthood (and for argument's sake, arranged marriages aren't the same as love). Humans don't work that way. Old movies might work that way. Bollywood movies often work that way. It's a device, that's all.

I was really touched by the relationship between the children through their hardships. I believed in that 100%. Just not how that translates to some undying romantic love. When he finds her, if she'd been more of a real person (because real people don't look like supermodels, especially when they come from the slums--good skin and hair care are expensive!), and there had been some moment or two to establish the development to an adult romantic love, I'd have bought it. One of my movie-pet-peeves. I think a number of people found the love story the most cliche part of the movie, though. A lot of the movie was really stylistically beautiful and the world was original. So why retread such old territory without a slightly fresher take is all I'm saying.

[Kubrick71]

This is fast becoming one of those films that it is considered uncouth not to adore.

Being an uncouth mother poo pooer myself - I gotta say, "What's the big deal?!":huh:

The plot was way too coincidental. I'm talkin' beyond "Running-into-the-same-person-over-and-over-again-amongst-eight-million-New-Yorkers" coincidental...

Hell, it was even beyond "The-last-season-of-Quantum-Leap-where-suddenly-Sam-only-leaps-into-celebrities-or-famous-notables" coincidental.

Come on, how could each and every question on the Who Wants to be a Millionaire show mirror or mark an all-important point in his life?! I am a wealth of trivial information, but I don't remember where I picked up any of the useless shi* stored in the ol' Callaghan cerebral CPU.

And I don't buy it being a higher power (Shiva, Allah, Fate, whatever) intervening.

Don't get me wrong, the cinematography was great and the acting was respectable - and I LOVED how the host said the word "millionaire"...

But as a story guy first and foremost, I can't see all the hoopla.:huh:

Agreed, this movie was entertaining but the praise that it's being given is pretty absurd.

The idea for this movie reminds me of something a 15 year old would come up with, it's cool, but very corny. Just about every part of the story has been done to death before...

When Jamal was calling his life-line at the end of the film and the cellphone rings, this guy in the audience started clapping out loud like he actually had no idea that was going to happen....wow, just wow...

[KyleProhaska]

I don't know Sean, I would argue that all the traumatic crap they went through as kids, and the need to take care of themselves most of the time would have them a little more developed mentally then the average 7 year old. Most American 7 year olds Veg. on the couch and watch Spongebob, not much development going on there, so I could totally buy them liking each other or at least sensing that.

Idk, that thought never popped into my head at all.

[sean90291]

Well, one thing is for sure--Slumdog is cohesive and consistent. The "fantasy" or fairy tale elements are carried through the entire thing, both in terms of story and tone. No one would probably cover themselves in paper money before a shootout either, but it's poetic and magical, just like meeting your "true love" from childhood and having her look like a supermodel is poetic and magical. It might be ridiculous, but it's "the movies." And Boyle is one of my favorite filmmakers. Whether we like or dislike the message or some other detail, the film is artfully constructed and true to itself within its own four corners, so to speak. I really admire that. I can only hope I can make something as good some day. I did find this review, however, that shows others are finding a few story elements problematic:

http://www.indiewire.com/movies/2008/11/trivial_pursuit_1.html

I saw the Wrestler in the same week. I think they're both great films. And they both stay true and cohesive throughout, but they're on opposite ends of the spectrum--one being fantasy and the other gritty reality. Right until the end, each film keeps the "rules of its world" in check.

[CallaghanFilms]

...The idea for this movie reminds me of something a 15 year old would come up with, it's cool, but very corny...Exactly:thumbsup:
So roll out the JR. HIGH OSCARS, and Slumdog should sweep...
but...
...wait...
...Hold the presses...
...I forgot about Twilight.

[Stephen Mick]

C'mon now, Callaghan. Comparing it to Twilight? Isn't that a bit harsh?

Besides, with Slumdog at 94% on RT, couldn't it just be that it's not your kind of movie?

[CallaghanFilms]

...And according to IMDB, The Dark Knight is the greatest film ever made.

Edit:

I am not comparing it to Twilight other than to agree with Kubrick about its premise being something a 15 year old could have scribed.

[Stephen Mick]

Really? You're throwing IMDB's anyone-can-vote rating at this?

Just read the Top Critic reviews of Slumdog. You may not agree with them, but being a vocal minority still places you in the minority.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, as is everyone. But Slumdog deserves a little bit better than to be lumped in with horny teenage vampire movies.

[CallaghanFilms]

I didn't realize you had to be a member of some exclusive secret skull and bones society to vote on Rotten Tomatoes:huh:

[Stephen Mick]

The community can vote, but I mostly only pay attention to their Top Critic reviews. (Not that they're always spot-on, but as a group they usually seem to get it right.)

[sean90291]

Yeah, when "anyone" can vote, you do get a watered down result.

I remember when Crash and Brokeback Mountain were up for Best Picture Oscars, and someone went to the street to ask who people thought should win. The most common answer was Alien vs. Predator.

[Richard J. Johnson]

Brilliantly shot, wonderfully acted, and masterfully directed. This is the best film of 2008 that I have watched. Easily. Just a great film. the end.

[Richard J. Johnson]

...And according to IMDB, The Dark Knight is the greatest film ever made.


Now that is comedy.

[dr jones]

i am a big danny boyle fan, and i didn't like this movie at all. just goes to show that opinions are just that... opinions.

[Kirk Gillock]

Yeah, when "anyone" can vote, you do get a watered down result.

Too bad our entire political system depends on it. lol :)

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Too bad our entire political system depends on it. lol :):grin:

[sean90291]

A serious fly in the ointment of democracy.

[CallaghanFilms]

Too bad our entire political system depends on it. lol :)I had to bite my tongue not to go there...

[Kirk Gillock]

Glad to see Danny Boyle is getting some award recognition. Slumdog isn't a perfect film (is there such a thing?) but it is a fantastic one.

Very few directors can work well in any genre (sci-fi, horror, romance, etc.) but he sure does.

[Brandon Rice]

Glad to see Danny Boyle is getting some award recognition. Slumdog isn't a perfect film (is there such a thing?) but it is a fantastic one.

Very few directors can work well in any genre (sci-fi, horror, romance, etc.) but he sure does.

Agreed, and EVERYONE I've recommended to see it have loved it as well.

[Batutta]

I enjoyed this, but, I dunno, it just didn't slay me and I'm not sure why. I can objectively see how well put together it is across the board - acting, directing, cinematography. Maybe I was expecting something a little deeper and a little more insightful in its commentary but it's not, it's just a simple underdog fairy tale. I guess that's fine, but Boyle did such a great job making the desperation and extreme social disparity of that world so palpable I was hoping in the end it would have a deeper resonance beyond -SPOILER- boy gets rich and gets the girl. For a film as vivid in its depiction of the haves and have nots it's surprisingly shallow.

[Stephen Mick]

Hey, Batutta, I can completely appreciate your POV. Perhaps letting us see and feel the slums of Mumbai was enough for Boyle to make a "statement." I also thought that the repeated references to the lead character's demeaning job as "chaivalla" to be a commentary of sorts.

But what I wonder is, why do films have to be "deep" (or perceived as such) to be appreciated as great films? Can't a film like Slumdog be a great film because of how entertaining/enjoyable it is?

Not trying to start a flame war/argument here, just curious.

[Batutta]

Hey, Batutta, I can completely appreciate your POV. Perhaps letting us see and feel the slums of Mumbai was enough for Boyle to make a "statement." I also thought that the repeated references to the lead character's demeaning job as "chaivalla" to be a commentary of sorts.

But what I wonder is, why do films have to be "deep" (or perceived as such) to be appreciated as great films? Can't a film like Slumdog be a great film because of how entertaining/enjoyable it is?

Not trying to start a flame war/argument here, just curious.

I just felt the world depicted was so vivid and extreme it begged for a story with more depth is all. Even the characters weren't that deeply drawn. They all had promising starts but in the end became stock archetypes. Did I want some heavy message film? No. But I was just expecting more at the end. This resolution just felt like dishonest Hollywood Bullsh*t cloaked in indie film drag. Really, what was the point of this at the end? Sometimes everything works out fine on its own. Hell, even in the first Rocky, he loses the fight. The point of the film was HOW he fought the fight, not whether he won it. Here, everything works out for the kid despite everything he does. Sorry, that message doesn't do me much good as a human. I guess that's why I didn't respond to the film, as well made as it is. I don't believe anything 'is written' until we write it.

[Stephen Mick]

Agreed (to some extent). But I also think that to seriously analyze a film like this you have to see it in the "Bollywood" context, where most all films have thinly-drawn characters and the obligatory dance number at the end. And (I understand) they usually have a happy ending.

[Batutta]

Agreed (to some extent). But I also think that to seriously analyze a film like this you have to see it in the "Bollywood" context, where most all films have thinly-drawn characters and the obligatory dance number at the end. And (I understand) they usually have a happy ending.

Upon further deliberation, I think the most basic problem I had with the film is that the protaganist is too passive. The story mostly happens to him, and is pushed forward and resolved by secondary characters and circumstances, not because of him. I'll agree that is sort of the point, as it's made clear by the final title of "It was written", I just don't like it as storytelling or personal philosophy. And this film wasn't made for Bollywood. It was made for Western audiences who have no frame of reference so I don't think the "Bollywood" context is a valid argument.

[Jim Klatt]

I feel similarly to Batutta.

Their obstacles felt exploited and then guided for some kind of payoff , which cheapened the story for me. Especially since, like Batutta said "the desperation and extreme social disparity of that world was so palpable".

I feel like Boyle didn't balance this very real and intense slum with a direction or path that honored the context of what was shown earlier. It just felt cheap and easy. I just don't think it honored its subject matter.

[Drew Ott]

I enjoyed the film quite a bit while watching it, but Batutta stated nicely why it's not one of my top picks for the year:


[The characters] all had promising starts but in the end became stock archetypes.

[Huy Vu]

Anybody noticed the large number of dutch shot used in this film? It feels like about 3/4 of the film is shot with a tilted camera which doesn't seem necessary.

I have to admit that there are moments in this film that genuinely excited me, but the storyline is just too contrived. Callaghan was right on, I just refused to buy that every single question he was asked comes from his life experience.

MINOR SPOILER
I also feel there was a contradiction in tone that was never quite resolved. For a "fairy tale," the films goes into some dark territory (torture, child prostitution, implied rape, arson, violence etc.) but the ending was wrapped up nice and tight with an extra sprinkling of sugar on top. I mean, was it REALLY necessary to have him correctly guessed the last question? He already got the girl and having him hit the jackpot as well just seems too nice and tidy for a film that went as dark as mentioned. I felt like it would have been a better ending for him to lose but still gets the girl he loves.

[Zak Forsman]

Anybody noticed the large number of dutch shot used in this film? It feels like about 3/4 of the film is shot with a tilted camera which doesn't seem necessary.those kids grew up in a highly destabilized environment. the canted angles, i felt, were motivated.


I have to admit that there are moments in this film that genuinely excited me, but the storyline is just too contrived. Callaghan was right on, I just refused to buy that every single question he was asked comes from his life experience.i didn't respond to the love story, but to say him knowing most of the answers was contrived is like saying that the behavior of the shark in Jaws was contrived. certain conceits have to be made for the existence of a plot. besides, everyone who ever went on that show and answered a question correctly, had to learn the answer at some point in their own lives, right? it might not have been as dramatic in real life, but you were sitting in a movie theater.[/quote]


MINOR SPOILER
I also feel there was a contradiction in tone that was never quite resolved. For a "fairy tale," the films goes into some dark territory (torture, child prostitution, implied rape, arson, violence etc.) but the ending was wrapped up nice and tight with an extra sprinkling of sugar on top. I mean, was it REALLY necessary to have him correctly guessed the last question? He already got the girl and having him hit the jackpot as well just seems too nice and tidy for a film that went as dark as mentioned. I felt like it would have been a better ending for him to lose but still gets the girl he loves.

despite what I didn't like about slumdog millionaire, i never got the impression this was a fairy tale. heavily romanticized and melodramatic at times, yes. but even so, fairy tales ARE very, very dark. grandmas eaten by wolves, a witch in a candy house putting children in her oven, trolls, demons, talking animals, bestiality, the works.

[CallaghanFilms]

...but to say him knowing most of the answers was contrived is like saying that the behavior of the shark in Jaws was contrived...
...only if every time Jaws took a bite of tasty human flesh, it triggered a different flashback to his mackerel childhood...

[Everts]

MINOR SPOILER
I also feel there was a contradiction in tone that was never quite resolved. For a "fairy tale," the films goes into some dark territory (torture, child prostitution, implied rape, arson, violence etc.) but the ending was wrapped up nice and tight with an extra sprinkling of sugar on top. I mean, was it REALLY necessary to have him correctly guessed the last question? He already got the girl and having him hit the jackpot as well just seems too nice and tidy for a film that went as dark as mentioned. I felt like it would have been a better ending for him to lose but still gets the girl he loves.

I think that we are so used to seeing the lead actor die or suffer some lost ( especialy in movies that are nominated for some a big award )that when this doesn't happen whe are like what's the meaning of it all ,this aint real.

This is just the way Bollywood movies (fairytales )are, they start out with dark and disturbing settings and can quickly change to innocent and romantic scenes. The hero as they would call it always gets it all in the end.
The movie ends with a dance bit F.C.O.L.:)
Boyle may have directed it but it still feels like a Bollywood movie, which is not a bad thing.

[kimko]

wow this was good! i haven't been to the movies since last year when i can go for free.

[capitalP]

Really good movie, now I see why its getting all the awards, a must see. The characters really draw you in, especially the scenes with the young kids, I felt sad, joy and pain for the characters, when a film does this to you, you know its something special.

And Danny Boyle does a great job of directing, before I saw this, I thought Fincher should get best director for Benjamin, but wow, Danny deserves it.

[Billy Pilgrim]

I liked the film, despite the somewhat conventional, and dare I say, a little predictable third act. I did like the film as a whole, but the scenes of their childhood were much more interesting. The flashback/question structure worked very well. And of course it has great, classic Danny Boyle visuals.

[Batutta]

So I guess the kid who played the young Salim is living under a tarp with his father who has TB. All the kids were paid peanuts, which is sad because I actually think the kids were better than the teenage versions of their characters, and probably had more screen time.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/4347472/Poor-parents-of-Slumdog-millionaire-stars-say-children-were-exploited.html

[Jim Klatt]

"Rubina was paid £500 for a year’s work while Azharuddin received £1,700, according to the children's parents."

Man, I'd make more money videotaping a wedding.

“There is none of the money left. It was all spent on medicines to help me fight TB,” Azharuddin’s father, Mohammed Ismail, said. “We feel that the kids have been left behind by the film. They have told us there is a trust fund but we know nothing about it and have no guarantees.”

They need to pay these kids fairly, and not based on anything to do with the annual salaries of people living in some of the poorest slums in the world. That is the argument made by people whose business models are based on sweatshop labor.

[Batutta]

"Rubina was paid £500 for a year’s work while Azharuddin received £1,700, according to the children's parents."

Man, I'd make more money videotaping a wedding.

“There is none of the money left. It was all spent on medicines to help me fight TB,” Azharuddin’s father, Mohammed Ismail, said. “We feel that the kids have been left behind by the film. They have told us there is a trust fund but we know nothing about it and have no guarantees.”

They need to pay these kids fairly, and not based on anything to do with the annual salaries of people living in some of the poorest slums in the world. That is the argument made by people whose business models are based on sweatshop labor.

Exactly. It's not as though these were five minute cameos or background players. The success of this story has A LOT to do with those kids. The audiences emotional investment depends on their portrayals. If they weren't as good as they were, the film wouldn't have worked nearly as well. They should've been paid AT LEAST as much as Dev Patel and Freida Pinto were paid.

[Richard J. Johnson]

The kids were great and derserve to be paid and paid well. They were the movie.

[CallaghanFilms]

They were paid three times the average local annual adult salary.
They worked on the film for 30 days.
Sounds pretty fair to me (and to the kids...after all, they signed on).
Now that the film is a hit, they want more?:huh:

[Richard J. Johnson]

3 times the local annual salary sounds like good money to me.

[Batutta]

They were paid three times the average local annual adult salary.
They worked on the film for 30 days.
Sounds pretty fair to me (and to the kids...after all, they signed on).
Now that the film is a hit, they want more?:huh:

They were exploited because they didn't know what they should be paid. The producers DID know, and paid them significantly less than any other actors because they could get away with it.

[Batutta]

3 times the local annual salary sounds like good money to me.

In that area!? That's probably like 50 bucks.

[Jim Klatt]

3 times the local annual salary sounds like good money to me.

Sure, if you don't live in one of the poorest slums in the world.

Without those kids and access to their neighborhoods and community, Fox Searchlight does not make 43 million dollars (so far) or get nominated for an oscar. The slum and the kids are the heart of the film.

The honorable thing to do would be own up to a)own up to the the contractual, educational trust funds that were supposed to be set up and b)be dignified about it and at least pay them on a non-3rd world slum model.

This is so thick with irony that they made this film about kids who are exploited and don't really have a chance. Fox Searchlight and Danny Boyle should call themselves SlumLord Millionaire's.

[CallaghanFilms]

If they were so good, shouldn't they get bigger and better offers? People agree to do jobs for X amount of $ for any number of reasons/motivations (exposure, a "foot in the door", contacts, you name it...)


Why they agreed to work for a price is irrelevant...The fact that they did agree, on the other hand, is.

[Batutta]

Fox Searchlight does not make 43 million dollars (so far)

85 million worldwide!...They should have been paid wages at least equal to the other actors in the film. How much do you guys think this actor made in the film?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/content/images/2007/07/20/iifa_gallery_05_470x320.jpg
I imagine if they offered him the kids salary, they would have gotten one of these--
http://www.balloon-juice.com/managed-images/middle_finger.jpg

[Batutta]

Why they agreed to work for a price is irrelevant...The fact that they did agree, on the other hand, is.

This is the same moral logic that produces stuff like BUMFIGHTS.

[CallaghanFilms]

Leo only got $2.5 million for Titanic...should he be making a stink too?

[CallaghanFilms]

This is the same moral logic that produces stuff like BUMFIGHTS.No, I'm pretty sure that breaks some laws. BIG difference.

[Jim Klatt]

Leo only got $2.5 million for Titanic...should he be making a stink too?

If the average person in the usa made thousands of trillions per year then he should.
But they don't, 2.5 million dollars is more than most people make in their lifetime so your argument doesn't make any sense.

[Batutta]

Leo only got $2.5 million for Titanic...should he be making a stink too?

The issue for me isn't whether or not they deserve a cut of the profits. They were never properly compensated to begin with, at least not an amount commensurate with their contribution to the film. These weren't struggling young actors in Hollywood looking for exposure. These were people looking for nothing more than their next meal. And this wasn't some threadbare indie. This was a 15 million dollar film. How much do you think Danny Boyle made, or the DP, or the key grip? Probably a lot more than the kids did, and their work was just as crucial to the success of the movie.

[CallaghanFilms]

If the average person in the usa made thousands of trillions per year then he should.
But they don't, 2.5 million dollars is more than most people make in their lifetime so your argument doesn't make any sense.

But, like the Slumdog kids, he agreed to a relatively low price for a starring role. I'm sure in hindsight, he wishes he'd held out for more. But you can wish in one hand and shi* in the other and see which fills up first.

[Jim Klatt]

No, I'm pretty sure that breaks some laws. BIG difference.

Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it is not wrong, especially when you are talking about what is legal or not illegal in one of the poorest slums in the world.

Sure, they can get away with it legally, but it's still exploitation and still dishonorable. More so considering the subject matter of their film.

[spidey]

its like getting labor in china on killbill they pay nothing for it the labor... just how this world works i mean it sucks by any means but thats show biz. ;-./

[Batutta]

But, like the Slumdog kids, he agreed to a relatively low price for a starring role. I'm sure in hindsight, he wishes he'd held out for more. But you can wish in one hand and shi* in the other and see which fills up first.

But he was paid FAR in excess of what is considered to be a decent wage for acting services to begin with. Also, he had an agent who negotiated fairly for him with the studio and got what he could. These people were uneducated, and probably would have been happy to work for food. The onus is on the producers, who know what they should be paying them but didn't. That is exploitation. Sweat shop labor. Whatever you want to call it.

[CallaghanFilms]

Lookit...

If Fox Searchlight wants to throw these Indian child actors a bone (in the form of a bonus)...good on them. That would be a standup thing to do. But it shouldn't be viewed that the kids "deserve It" cause contractually they don't.

Lucas went back and gave James Earl Jones a sizable bonus after the initial success of Star Wars...not because he had to, but because he wanted to.

[spidey]

yeah now it comes down to the producers if they want to be nice.

[Batutta]

yeah now it comes down to the producers if they want to be nice.

They should've been nice to begin with instead of lining their own pockets with what they should've paid their actors. Look...I wouldn't be as upset if these were extras, or actors in one scene, but they were in at least HALF of the films running time. They WERE the movie.

[spidey]

and i agree with you but thats how some movies are made. should the people working on killbill got paid minimum wage for building huge sets YES! but they didnt. only the state side team got paid normal film wages.

[CallaghanFilms]

...people were uneducated, and probably would have been happy to work for food...:evil:So should we give Manhattan back to the Canarsee tribe?:evil:

People the world over make less-than-smart financial decisions every day. Live and learn, baby.

[spidey]

then get luves.

[Batutta]

:evil:So should we give Manhattan back to the Canarsee tribe?:evil:

People the world over make less-than-smart financial decisions every day. Live and learn, baby.

There is a difference between someone making a bad decision out of risk taking or plain stupidity, and someone taking advantage of another person's weak position to get them to do valuable work. These kids were taken advantage of, and they didn't know it.

[spidey]

i know hopefully the producers will see that they did this and give the kids either more money equal to the other actors or a percentage. i agree the movie with out them is no where as good or believable.

[Jim Klatt]

:evil:So should we give Manhattan back to the Canarsee tribe?:evil:

People the world over make less-than-smart financial decisions every day. Live and learn, baby.

Your rationale assumes the philosophy or opinion of the person who does the exploiting or victimizing. Taking advantage of somebody else's lack of knowledge or understanding and then turning around and saying, "we had a deal", is morally repugnant.

[Jim Klatt]

The stinkiest thing is that they were told that they would have educational trust funds until 18, and they haven't even seen that established yet. That was part of the contract according to the parent(s).

[ESTEBEVERDE]

But, like the Slumdog kids, he agreed to a relatively low price for a starring role. I'm sure in hindsight, he wishes he'd held out for more. But you can wish in one hand and shi* in the other and see which fills up first.


I guess that depends on what you ate the night before???

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Bottom line is this.

Economics are Economics are Economics.....

India is a country of the richest and the poorest in the entire world.

So, don't blame the filmmakers for India's absolute inhumane inequality.

With that said, yes, the producers can do the human thing and give up some money to the people who made the film what it is.

Otherwise it really is exploitation.

[Batutta]

Bottom line is this.

Economics are Economics are Economics.....

India is a country of the richest and the poorest in the entire world.

So, don't blame the filmmakers for India's absolute inhumane inequality.


But they are just perpetuating that inequality by paying their child actors far below what their work is normally valued at in the industry. Saying that's just the way the world is is not an argument (not saying you are guilty of this ESTEBEVERDE). If Abraham Lincoln had just said 'that's the way the world is' I wouldn't be having this conversation with any of you.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

But they are just perpetuating that inequality by paying their child actors far below what their work is normally valued at in the industry. Saying that's just the way the world is is not an argument (not saying you are guilty of this ESTEBEVERDE). If Abraham Lincoln had just said 'that's the way the world is' I wouldn't be having this conversation with any of you.


No. You are mistaken about that.

The wage they were paid was the prevailing wage of the local economy.

If they pay higher and higher they will make but a ripple but if more and more do it then it causes huge problems of inflation.

India needs to equalize from within.

They are on the road but there is much racism and classicism that needs to be sorted.

I am speaking purely about Micro and Macro Economics.


Lincoln made his decisions based on Economics as much as he did about anything else. Maybe even more so.


I understand your anguish and most certainly feel your pain but regardless of what they pay those lads it will not change India. India has to make changes within.


Another way to look at this is if Indian wages are nominally on par with US or Canadian or UK etc... India will loose almost all of it's business all things else equal.


Just the way it is.


Now, when Indian GDP per capita is closer to ours then we are cooking with gas and indeed they will actually demand higher wages than US, or EU, or UK stars as their market is several orders of magnitude larger than ours!

It would be almost a 180 degree reversal of sorts! :beer:

[Batutta]

No. You are mistaken about that.

The wage they were paid was the prevailing wage of the local economy.


Which was wrong, unless everyone on the set there was also paid those wages. I can assure you they weren't. They should have been paid the prevailing wage of a 15 million dollar production.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Which was wrong, unless everyone on the set there was also paid those wages. I can assure you they weren't. They should have been paid the prevailing wage of a 15 million dollar production.

That's not how it works.

If they were paid the same then it would have been a 35 million dollar production done in LA or Canada.


Sorry Man.

But if you want to shoot your next film in India and Pay US or EU or UK wages they will more than gladly accept!


Se la vie.


But perhaps they can parlay this into something more....

[CallaghanFilms]

If I win something on ebay for a steal of a deal, should I feel guilty and pay more?

[Batutta]

If I win something on ebay for a steal of a deal, should I feel guilty and pay more?

Do they sell Indian child labor on ebay?

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Do they sell Indian child labor on ebay?

OUCH!!! :thumbsup:

[CallaghanFilms]

Indian child labor is three times the average local annual adult salary?! In that case...

Someone get Kathy Lee Gifford on the phone for me...I got two kiddies for her (cha-ching!)

[Jim Klatt]

If I win something on ebay for a steal of a deal, should I feel guilty and pay more?

Once again, your analogy doesn't apply to the situation. Buying an item on ebay from a faceless stranger doesn't have anything in common with hiring a human being to work for you, and with you. At least, I would hope not.

I think it is interesting how you used the phrase "for a steal", though; meaning "something acquired at a cost far below its real value".

Feeling guilty, is ultimately, up to you. If you want to feel like you got a steal of a deal from some kids who live in the poor slums, then I suppose you will.

[Brandon Rice]

you agree to a wage... you get that... end of story.

Everyone thinks people have some sort of extra "right"

No... they don't... sorry.

[CallaghanFilms]

you agree to a wage... you get that... end of story.

Everyone thinks people have some sort of extra "right"

No... they don't... sorry.Them's the way of things.

[Jim Klatt]

you agree to a wage... you get that... end of story.

Everyone thinks people have some sort of extra "right"

No... they don't... sorry.

Firstly, one of the things that was agreed upon, according to the article, is that they were supposed to have trust funds for their education until they were 18. So this portion of the contract, again according to the article, has not been met.

Secondly, during the negotiation process, it is fairly obvious that the children would most likely not have the capacity to represent themselves fairly in the context of what other people were getting paid on this multimillion dollar film.

When you are paid pennies when are other are getting paid well, and you do not have the education or scope to understand how to fairly represent yourself, you are being exploited. Playing upon another's weakness, in any form, to gain advantage is the definition of exploitation. Sure, it's legal in the slums of India, but they should know better.

Also, cherrypicking quotes from the bible will not shed any light, except the light that you want to see. It will also probably close this thread before long...

[spidey]

either case should the kids get more money yes they desrve it for their work. will they no. but were they compensated yes. fairly? perhaps not. but they could have not got any and the recognition they brought to the film and themselves and india i think is very good. Will the producers give them more money. who knows if they did awesome if they didnt i mean i cant really judge it. how much were they paid in general?

[Jim Klatt]

Rubina was paid £500 for a year’s work while Azharuddin received £1,700, according to the children's parents.

also:

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.

[CallaghanFilms]

A year's work? Were they making The Lord of the Rings Trilogy? Fox Searchlight says 30 days.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Yep...

Like the parable in the bible, when the groundskeeper went and hired people in the morning, they agreed to a wage, then he hired people in the afternoon and they agreed to the same wage... the people hired in the morning complained... but they had agreed to the wage...

Same principle here.


I like the parables in the bilbe where they rape, pillage, and kill.

Those are always my favorites.

It's such a good book. :thumbsup:

[spidey]

well all im going to say is this.

mickey rouke and springsteen deferred pay.... :-/

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I love all of this.

It's great we are having a dialogue .

Like I said, throw money at the third world if you like. It's your money.


But when it is all pissed away don't come back crying. Just stay in the third world!


The only thing that will change the third world is building opportunity and infrastructure.


The way the developed world can help would be technology transfers within reason as well as global trade.

But, you pay in local wages not in home office wages.


If you think that an American worker working for a British Company in America gets paid in pounds or their dollar equivalent you're mad.

Simply mad.


This is the same exact principle many times over.


I can't believe a single one of the belly achers would fly to India check into their hotel and go to the local restaurant and refuse to pay any less in US DOLLARS than they would here at home!

Not gonna happen and it is the exact same principle compounded!


If you are that type of person then please please please PM me and I will set you up with our family in Sri Lanka, the Philippines, etc. etc. etc.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

well all im going to say is this.

mickey rouke and springsteen deferred pay.... :-/

:grin: !!!

[Jim Klatt]

Yeah, that made me laugh too! As well as the funny Lord of the Rings comment...:)

[Batutta]

Yep...

Like the parable in the bible, when the groundskeeper went and hired people in the morning, they agreed to a wage, then he hired people in the afternoon and they agreed to the same wage... the people hired in the morning complained... but they had agreed to the wage...

Same principle here.

Brandon, Brandon. Seriously. What would Jesus do?

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Brandon, Brandon. Seriously. What would Jesus do?

If he were alive today?

He would have a teleevangelical show just like Ted Haggard. :thumbsup:

[Batutta]

If he were alive today?

He would have a teleevangelical show just like Ted Haggard. :thumbsup:

Well he wouldn't be taking advantage of poor children in the slums of India. Of all the stories Brandon could pick from the Bible to get moral instruction from, he chooses that one!

[ESTEBEVERDE]

The bible is a funny funny funny book!

[Richard J. Johnson]

The bible is a funny funny funny book!

C'mon.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

C'mon.



Well, some of it is just plain weird and creepy but there are a lot of fun stories in it! :beer:

[kimko]

what the hell is wrong with you people...politics, religion, over a movie! if you don't like it, do something about it, not talk about it especially on here. just do it!!! like P.K. don't yap about it do something!

[Ian-T]

I have not seen this movie but the trailer looks fantastic. I have to agree with those who said it looked like film (though it didn't matter if it did or not). In regards to the camera used how comparable is it with the Red camera?


...hopefully this question changes the subject...

[Batutta]

I have not seen this movie but the trailer looks fantastic. I have to agree with those who said it looked like film (though it didn't matter if it did or not). In regards to the camera used how comparable is it with the Red camera?


...hopefully this question changes the subject...

I bet the camera cost more than what the child actors were paid!:evil:

[spidey]

its a silicon imaging camera it can only go to 2k let me see theres a thread about it.

[spidey]

here info about it.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=85392&page=13

[Ian-T]

I bet the camera cost more than what the child actors were paid!:evil:
LOL.....that was a cheap shot!!!:-Laugh(DBG)-1

Thanks Spidey.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I bet the camera cost more than what the child actors were paid!:evil:

Well of course!

Most cameras cost more than the actors!

All depends.

[Batutta]

Well of course!

Most cameras cost more than the actors!

All depends.

I was talking about the RENTAL cost.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I was talking about the RENTAL cost.



Ouch!!!! :huh:

[naavt]

Sorry but this film was really disappointing for me!
It somehow remembers me Scott's film The Gladiator just because I don't see why the Academy still nominates this kind of movies!!!

It's one of the most cliché boy meets girl film that I remember seeing in this last few years, with a ridiculous narrative technique of constant Flashback/forward motion, with a even more ridiculous story of an adolescent that can unimaginably respond to all the questions on a Quiz Show just because... And that's plain stupid, he just passed through the right experiences of life to know the answers!!!!

Ahhh... Common! Everybody knows that coincidence never worked on film (Like to take some of the few exception here, and this is definitely not one of them).

But what the hell... I'm European, so I guess I don't understand it!!

On the other hand... Two US films blew me away this year: The amazing return of Mickey in the astonishing The Wrestler, and the double team Penn/Van Sant in Milk.

[SPZ]

If Benjamin Button is Forrest Gump without "soul", then Slumdog Millionaire is City of God mixing Bollywood and Hollywood magic. Its a feel good film, very well shot. It will probably win best director. It will be, however, though to see if this goes all the way and "wins" the final prize. We are in a year of depression, of crisis, and maybe, just maybe, this factor will be enough to give Slumdog that extra push among the other contestants...

[spidey]

the movie is about destiny.

[Batutta]

the movie is about destiny.

Fate, destiny, same bullsh*t.

[Jim Klatt]

the movie is about destiny.

It's about destiny when it comes to the contrived love story. Is it about destiny when slum villagers are slaughtered off incidentally, though? The films strikes different philosophies to suit different moments and different characters. It is one cliche after another. By the time the 3 Musketeers question happened, even my wife was scoffing at the amateur plot treatment.

[spidey]

hey it was a book first, blame the publisher.

also if you go by certain cultures, destiny/fate a huge part of they lives. Where in western belief, I quote terminator 2 for this: there is no fate, but what you make.

So those innocence bystanders being killed off help further his destiny, which prompt two thing his love story and to be the first person to win who wants to be a millionaire. Were they destiny to die? perhaps not everyone is predestined for anything but things can be rewritten before they happen, laws of Karma... but perhaps some people are destined for great things and to be great people or to have great romances.

I dunno. yes the story had been done but it was interesting fun. and the cliche yes they have all been done before. Come up with a new thing that hasn't been done and you'll be consider out of the norm or eventual a cliche if other tend to do it. That's where the writer has control and if they don't make "head in the box" type of story, then they don't.

[Batutta]

also if you go by certain cultures, destiny/fate a huge part of they lives. Where in western belief, I quote terminator 2 for this: there is no fate, but what you make.


The problem is that one idea is conducive to good drama, and the other is not. Drama is based on the choices characters make when confronted by conflict. Taking away the element of choice, and basing every plot turn on fate or destiny or chance or coincidence, makes for poor storytelling.

[spidey]

and thats where i say hey blame the author. lol

[SPZ]

SPOILERS

Well, one could argue that he chose his own path- he fought for what he believed. He believed in his love for Latika. This drove him to get back to his hometown to find her- which also made his brother chose his fate- Jamal's actions where moved by love, not because he believed in destiny- he didn't care about winning the contest. When he heard Latika's voice on the other side of the line, he just didn't care about the money anymore. Remember, he was "given" B by the host, and he chose D because that's what life has tought him, not fate. If he believed in destiny, or fate, he would've chosen B.

EDIT- and as for the plot, sincerely, I really liked watching more a, well "romanticized" story of contemporary India then watch a soulless Forrest Gump telling a story of contemporary USA with the added chapter of Katrina. Between Benjamin and this, most certainly Slumdog. Today I'll see Frost/Nixon and Milk. Unfortunately I have no chance to see The Reader... And I'll be talking at the local radio on the Oscar's broadcast! BAD RESEARCH! :)

[ESTEBEVERDE]

"Slumdog Millionaire" Kids Will Attend The Oscars
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/slumdog-millionaire-kids_n_168485.html)

[Batutta]

Good, and hopefully they'll run into Angelina Jolie so she can adopt them.

[spidey]

lol.

[Oliax]

wow, this movie is insanely overrated. if i didn't know any better i would have thought this movie is the second coming of christ

[KyleProhaska]

Yea, pretty insane (the hype). But that's always how it works.

[nouou]

I saw this last night. In my opinion...

The screenplay was really, really good. Have not read the novel, tho.
The cinematography was good.
I'd prefer subtitles in a fixed location than changing places every line, this got pretty annoying.
The guy playing the older Malik (Dev Patel?) wasn't that bad at acting.
Was better than most trash that's come out recently.
I didn't agree w/ it taking home best picture or director.

IMO it was good.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Loved it! Not entirely sure if it deserves all the acclaim but I've still yet to see all of the other nominated pictures.

Pretty good film though. I was thoroughly interested throughout. :thumbup:

[ZetKey]

Cinematography and music was great! But from the middle film becomes borring. Because I know where he gets the right answers. That type of luck reminds me Forrest Gump. The chase scene in the begining reminds me City of God (they even had a running chicken). The love story is dull, nothing new, nothing "wow" here.

[SPZ]

I felt that Button deserved best cinematography. I also agree there's too much of City of God in this film. For me, best picture should be Milk. Not that I particularly like the subject, mind you, but because it was very well shot, it was an "auteur" movie (Gus Van Sant's cinematic language was always present) with fantastic performances, not only from Sean Penn (well deserved Oscar) but from the Green Goblin Jr and the rest. Fantastic movie, excelent music, great editing and also great art design. As an heterosexual raised in a Catholic background society (but I'm agnostic), this movie was hard to get into, but it turned out to be a very well told story and a great film.

[ChrisHurn]

I wasn't pumped about seeing this film before hand from the trailer or clips or the hype, but I'm glad I decided to see it. I thought the cinematography was great, the camera work, the way it was shot...I loved the dynamic crazy camera moves, I usually don't like it, especially in movies like the Bourne ones which I really don't like. Here though it seemed very creative and stylish, went well with the film and was inspired movement not just "Shake to create tension".

Definitely not on my top 20 favorite films or anything but I did quite like it. The way people were talking about it, I expected something really amazing. I still liked the film, though.

The subtitles did not bother me, I hardly noticed they were moving around the screen like that, it seemed to fit well.

[ZetKey]

Subtitles in Slumdog. Subtitles was not in the fixed location, and we see many shots where landscape is leaning. I think it means that Jamal's world is unstable, moving (alive).
I liked the scene, where in the skyscrapper Jamal's brother was dreaming about new buildings ant in his sun glasses were reflection of those buildings.

[Jim Brennan]

Finally got around to seeing this. I enjoyed it, but movies this hyped rarely live up to nearly impossible expectations. It was a very well crafted film, but I believe it got the Oscar for sentimental reasons.

I loved the colors and lighting, but I thought the dutch angles were slightly overplayed.

Loved the editing and felt the music worked well.

As for the money/kids discussion, I don't know the details of the trust fund issue. But I have to say that paying 3x the average annual salary for 30 days work turns out to be 36 times the average salary. I realize that 36 times poverty level is hardly life-long wealth, but it doesn't seem like taking advantage of people either.

And the destiny thing...well, this movie has nothing to do with destiny. Whatever the flaws in the script, it's all about the choices Malik makes, which rule out destiny. My wife and I used to counsel couple who were getting married, and the first thing I would tell them is that I think the whole notion of "we were meant to be together " is not only a steaming pile of crap, it's the least romantic notion in the world. Real romance is waking up next to someone that spends as much time pissing you off as making you smile and saying "I choose you"

I'll take that over the illusion that someone was chosen for me six days a week and twice on Sunday.

[ChipG]

Real romance is waking up next to someone that spends as much time pissing you off as making you smile and saying "I choose you"

Jim, I can't quit you!

[CallaghanFilms]

I still don't get it.

Granted I'm drunk, but I still don't gett it,,,

[ChipG]

LOL :) Chad, you never liked that movie.

[Jim Brennan]

I still don't get it.

Granted I'm drunk, but I still don't gett it,,,


To be honest, neither do I. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, but I don't see the big deal. My only explanation is that all of us have a difficult time differentiating between what we like and what is really good. (Half the world seems to love Knowing, and I think it's a steaming pile of poop. I love Highlander, but would never say it's a great movie) Despite its dark themes, this was more like a Disney movie than anything else.


Spoilers below:



Lots of plot elements bothered me.

For street kids, they aren't very smart. Do they really think they can walk in to a brothel and take out a virgin?

They miss a great opportunity to explain Salim a little better. The brothel scene is an obvious turning point for him. But he never would have been there, or felt like he had to kill that guy except for Jamal acting like an idiot. Salim was perfectly content scamming tourists at the Taj Mahal, but he went back to Mumbai for Jamal. Then Jamal puts him in that situation in the brothel, and Salim saves him, again. Then, much like he sold the autograph in the beginning, he takes Latika as payment for his service. I am in no way justifying what he did, but I would have loved to have seen something like a Michael/Fredo scene in Godfather II. We don't agree with his choice, but I think we deserved an understanding of it, or else he is just a cardboard cut-out plot device. There was a depth and complexity that could have fed this story at a more meaningful level, because that was where the real character growth and development came from. We never really know why he is obsessed with Latika, because we never know her (except to know that she is stupid enough to get followed to the train station, despite knowing how dangerous her captor is). But we do have an understanding of the Salim/Jamal relationship. That's where it really misses the mark for me.


Jim, I can't quit you! :thumbsup:

[Brandon Rice]

Still love the film! :D

[Jim Brennan]

Still love the film! :D

And so you should Brando. If it moved you, it moved you. That's the magic of these things.:thumbsup:

I always feel weird dissecting films, because so much of it is subjective. But I always get something out of it. These type of dialogues help me learn how to refine and define my own work.

[grinner]

I tried to hang with it. Dozed off about an hour in.
Seemed like a student film on acid to me. I didn't like how the closed captioning was done and I kept waiting for the dude to beat his brother's ass. I guess thats what I gave up on.
I could watch bad movies without renting them.
fooey.

[jpastuch]

Not a very good film. Hollow, standard hollywood love story. His obession with this girl was just that- and obsession, not love. Love isn't destiny- like someone else said, real love is when you spend just as much time hating the person as loving them. It's a big struggle, not some goofy idea of destiny.

What is this film even saying? He gets rich and "gets the girl" at the end because of a series of coincidences. How about the obession with money and concepts leading to disaster? How about showing how the real India isn't just one giant slum? How about showing how bad the slums REALLY are, in a ruthless, scary, unflinching way like in City of God? The main character made it out of the slums in that film not by luck or coincidence or "destiny"- he did it by risking his life and having a personal passion to hold on to- for himself.

Anyway, whatever. When have the Oscars been a barometer for good films? Rarely- very very very rarely.

[Chamber005]

Not a very good film. Hollow, standard hollywood love story. His obession with this girl was just that- and obsession, not love. Love isn't destiny- like someone else said, real love is when you spend just as much time hating the person as loving them. It's a big struggle, not some goofy idea of destiny.

What is this film even saying? He gets rich and "gets the girl" at the end because of a series of coincidences. How about the obession with money and concepts leading to disaster? How about showing how the real India isn't just one giant slum? How about showing how bad the slums REALLY are, in a ruthless, scary, unflinching way like in City of God? The main character made it out of the slums in that film not by luck or coincidence or "destiny"- he did it by risking his life and having a personal passion to hold on to- for himself.

Anyway, whatever. When have the Oscars been a barometer for good films? Rarely- very very very rarely.

YES! AGREE! I DO! RIGHT HERE!

People keep telling me that the only reason I thought the movie was crap was because it was over-hyped -- but I've never paid any attention to hype. Dark Knight was "over-hyped". Guess what movie I thought was kick-booty awesome?

This movie was Bollywood entering into Hollywood cinema of the early 80s. Most Bollywood stuff is so tragically unwatchable that people literally stood up and cheered because this one managed to maintain the interest of a western audience for more than 5 minutes. But the ironic thing is that this movie isn't FROM Bollywood. The actors aren't Indian, they're English, as is the director, et al. Thus, it should be judged accordingly.

Despite this movie showcasing Indian people as an abusive, uneducated, prejudice people, all of India still cheered because America actually gave the movie a thumb up...

The movie was cardboard-bad and completely offensive if you actually look at the thing scene by scene. I mean, the darker, evil brother is a Muslim?!?!

Come on, man. This movie is a wretched thing. Don't be fooled by them making American's look like superstars, "This is how we do things in America." I literally almost turned the movie off after that line...

Nothing in the script was unique. Nothing in the acting was profound. The movie was watchable but wholly uninspired

[spidey]

directed and produced UK...

[David Jimerson]

real love is when you spend just as much time hating the person as loving them.

:huh:

[Jim Brennan]

:huh:


Yeah, not exactly what I meant (If I was the one being paraphrased). I never hate my wife, but there are things about her that drive me nuts. But I choose to stay and I love her more than anything. She does the same (I'm hoping...) My point was just that I don't buy into the destiny thing about love. Romance is about seeing beyond people's faults and choosing to build something together. People who buy into the soulmate/destiny thing are the one's who bail when things get tough, and they always get tough at some point.

[pathfinder]

Finally saw it on DVD. A film that will go down in my book as a surprisingly good movie. It really did deserve the attention it got and the awards it had won. But...what we have to say, yae or nae, matters very little. It made a ton of money and Danny Boyle is enjoying his glow right now, as we speak. I'm pretty sure some of us filmmakers would love to be him right now....LOL. j/k.

For those of you who have not seen it, watch it. Look for the Bollywood treat at the end.

[Chamber005]

Yeah, not exactly what I meant (If I was the one being paraphrased). I never hate my wife, but there are things about her that drive me nuts. But I choose to stay and I love her more than anything. She does the same (I'm hoping...) My point was just that I don't buy into the destiny thing about love. Romance is about seeing beyond people's faults and choosing to build something together. People who buy into the soulmate/destiny thing are the one's who bail when things get tough, and they always get tough at some point.


This always surprises me about people in relationships. They always talk about the other person driving them nuts or the toughness of it all. I don't understand. I've had mostly long term relationships in my life, and all of them were filled with nuts and toughness -- until I met the girl I knew I would marry. The girl, when I was eight years old, I met in dreams and talked with and loved.

We've been together for years and we've never once had a single fight. Never once have I gotten upset with her or her with me. Heck, I remember one time she said something in the next room and I rolled me eyes? I stopped the conversation immediately and went into the room with her, told her I'd just rolled my eyes at what she said, and apologized for it. If I was having, like, lustful thoughts about some chick walking down the street, I mention it to her and we talk about it. Just like every time she walks into a room and I'm blown away by my love for her and how beautiful I think she is, I tell her.

I do believe that we can love many people, but when you've found true love and that sense of deep knowing is all-encompassing, it really is something beyond understanding in human terms. The mutual connection is ethereal, ya know? Spiritual, I guess. If you can rip away all of your human layers, with your true love you are able to speak with ungaurded honesty.

She demands that I understand and accept her completely, as I do her. In true love the human stuff falls away because the love will be there long after our bodies and brains are dust.

In the end, the only thing that should take "work" in a relationship is the work we do on ourselves -- the work we do protecting that love and not allowing it to be molested by all the human garbage that attempts to interfere.

There is perfection in the world and that perfection is when we've allowed ourselves to let go of all the human stuff and let ourselves exist in absolute love.

[Jim Brennan]

Well, I admire and respect your experience. But I have counseled couples personally and professionally for decades. Your experience is close to unique.

While I agree that the only real work we can do is on ourselves (meaning you can't really change anyone else), there is 'work' involved in understanding and accepting another human being. We are all different and we all have different moods, motivations, desires and experiences which make the road rough at times. I don't really always understand myself, so I can't imagine I will ever be able to fully understand anyone else.

But that is what makes the relationship so rewarding. To be frank, only that which requires work is fulfilling. If it isn't (at least at times) difficult, then it seems to be a bit boring.

I mean no disrespect, but the very reason why I love, trust and count on my wife is BECAUSE of the rough times, not in spite of them. I am more grateful for those moments than any other.

[Batutta]

We've been together for years and we've never once had a single fight. Never once have I gotten upset with her or her with me.

Come on!!!! Not once!!! Not a single solitary time!!! You are not human beings as I know them.

[Chamber005]

Come on!!!! Not once!!! Not a single solitary time!!! You are not human beings as I know them.


LOL -- I swear! There's just never been a reason to argue. We've both argued with other people (though we're both relatively passive), but most of what we talk about revolves around the bettering of ourselves as individuals or what we love about each other. There's simply nothing that either of us do that bothers one another -- certainly not enough to bring us to arguing.

I think we have such a profound respect for one another and a profound respect for our love that we simply are incapable of disrepecting the choice we've made to be in our relationship (as a relationship, unlike love, is a choice). And we certainly wouldn't allow ANY human, menial business to get in and muck with our affections for one another. We both understand that nothing we will ever do in our lives will be as important than having found one another in this life. We each individually have our goals and asperations, but in the sense of spirit and purpose, finding your true love is a profound thing -- a thing that shouldn't be taken for granted or disrespected by your human shortcomings.

Unlike a lot of people, never in our day do me or my girl have to pause and question what is really important in this life. We live every moment in absolute understanding and presence in the moments, in love and with purpose. Like I said, all the human stuff is already gone. We're already dead. My love has existed long before I was born and it'll be present long after my flesh is discarded, right? Nothing is more important than what's eternal. Everything, all this, is just window-dressing and magazine covers.

[Jim Brennan]

I think it is important to point that many people believe conflict is a bad thing. It isn't. In fact, it is from conflict that we grow, learn and become enriched. It is how we handle conflict that matters. It also does not mean you don't respect someone. In fact, a healthy respect often fosters conflict because it means you care enough to disagree.

Most of the people who say they don't fight are just avoiding conflict, which is quite unhealthy, and usually ends up biting you in the butt at some point.

[Batutta]

LOL -- I swear! There's just never been a reason to argue. We've both argued with other people (though we're both relatively passive), but most of what we talk about revolves around the bettering of ourselves as individuals or what we love about each other. There's simply nothing that either of us do that bothers one another -- certainly not enough to bring us to arguing.

I think we have such a profound respect for one another and a profound respect for our love that we simply are incapable of disrepecting the choice we've made to be in our relationship (as a relationship, unlike love, is a choice). And we certainly wouldn't allow ANY human, menial business to get in and muck with our affections for one another. We both understand that nothing we will ever do in our lives will be as important than having found one another in this life. We each individually have our goals and asperations, but in the sense of spirit and purpose, finding your true love is a profound thing -- a thing that shouldn't be taken for granted or disrespected by your human shortcomings.

Unlike a lot of people, never in our day do me or my girl have to pause and question what is really important in this life. We live every moment in absolute understanding and presence in the moments, in love and with purpose. Like I said, all the human stuff is already gone. We're already dead. My love has existed long before I was born and it'll be present long after my flesh is discarded, right? Nothing is more important than what's eternal. Everything, all this, is just window-dressing and magazine covers.

I'll just say you're missing out on some great make-up sex!

[Chamber005]

Well, I admire and respect your experience. But I have counseled couples personally and professionally for decades. Your experience is close to unique.

While I agree that the only real work we can do is on ourselves (meaning you can't really change anyone else), there is 'work' involved in understanding and accepting another human being. We are all different and we all have different moods, motivations, desires and experiences which make the road rough at times. I don't really always understand myself, so I can't imagine I will ever be able to fully understand anyone else.

But that is what makes the relationship so rewarding. To be frank, only that which requires work is fulfilling. If it isn't (at least at times) difficult, then it seems to be a bit boring.

I mean no disrespect, but the very reason why I love, trust and count on my wife is BECAUSE of the rough times, not in spite of them. I am more grateful for those moments than any other.

Yeah, but tough times happen all the time. We shouldn't be creating additional tough times from the foundations of our relationship. My girl has been through many tough times with me, but I would never have allowed myself or she herself to create those tough times for us. I can't imagine anything more base and genuinely evil than treating the one you love with even a moment of disrespect, as you can never, ever get that moment back again.

As for not understanding yourself...that's a tough one. I was in mental homes from an early age all the while they were trying to force feed me medications to create a more "normal" me. I think through those bouts of adolecent insanity I had to create palpable the kind of spirit people refer to in after thought (or don't refer to at all). I think the only way we as humans can overcome mental afflictions is by using something beyond the gray matter -- since that is the infected part. Maybe in doing so I've been able to sip from a different sauce than a lot of people, and because she is my true love, at the beginning of our relationship she asked that I form the vessel for our love -- a vessel that will be able to withstand all of the human trappings in store for all people.

It's incredibly sad to hear from a person of your vast experience that love doesn't exist this way for most people. My girl and I always assumed that there were many, many couples out there just like us but that we simply hadn't met them.

Regardless, love is love. My love for my woman is no deeper than any man has for his significant other. But we're all animals and so must all work daily to achieve the higher self, that deeper understanding of love and spirit.

[Jim Brennan]

I think you are misunderstanding me. I don't intentionally disrespect my wife. That doesn't mean she doesn't do things that irritate me, or vice versa. You mean to tell me that this woman has never done ANYTHING, EVER to make you say, "jeez, I can't believe she did this", or "what was she thinking?" I find that pretty much impossible to believe.

Love is not about never being angry at one another. It is about choosing to work through those things and build something worthwhile.

[Chamber005]

I'll just say you're missing out on some great make-up sex!

LOL! See, and I KNOW me some make-up sex from the past relationships I've had.

But there is a kind of sex that is equally as passionate. When myself or my girl speak with one another regarding deep emotional issues (often times not related to one another but just emotional aspects of the self), there's a similar kind of kinetic energy that occurs, much like when I've argued with people in previous relationships. What makes make up sex so great is there was a release and then a sense of triumph or defeat and then, finally, a sense of deep re-connecting. Sitting with another person and having them find that place where love meets body is incredibly emotional and profound because, as humans, we understand that we will never in this life ever truly be intertwined with our true love. Our very existence prevents that. But sex after an emotional experience offers at least some solace. Even if our love has to exist in these two separate bodies, during sex those bodies kind of mold from the psyche's perspective.

On the real, the only thing that was especially challenging in the beginning (sex-wise) was that I had TOO much respect for her. She was a virgin when we met and I had the most horrific time letting my more animal self take over, even if I wanted it to.

Obviously I got over it with time.

Bottom line, if you're with the one you love you will know it because you will have known them before -- a past life, a division of a previous space in time that you both once shared -- you know it as simple as gravity. You know it like you understand your purpose in this life. Everything that is important is already inside yourself. You already know who you love. You already know what you should do and where you were supposed to arrive 5 minutes ago. It's just a matter of connecting with the self and monitoring that connection, and listening not to your senses or your mind, but the things that created them.

[Chamber005]

I think you are misunderstanding me. I don't intentionally disrespect my wife. That doesn't mean she doesn't do things that irritate me, or vice versa. You mean to tell me that this woman has never done ANYTHING, EVER to make you say, "jeez, I can't believe she did this", or "what was she thinking?" I find that pretty much impossible to believe.

Love is not about never being angry at one another. It is about choosing to work through those things and build something worthwhile.


I can only imagine that you find it impossible to believe because you've seen something different portrayed in fiction and then imitated in life by people around you again and again and again. Me and my girl aren't a part of that cycle. We don't exist in this reality where people who love each other have problems with them. How could I? She exists as she does, I exist as I do. To have "problems" with each other would be taking on a role of...judge, inspector, evaluator. I do not judge, inspect or evaluate my love or the girl with whom I am in love with. Fiction has created, because of a desperate need for story's conflict, a kind of reflection of love and humanity that isn't accurate, but because people have no connection with the self, they watch others who have watched others who have watched others behave a certain way and have deemed it rational and correct.

We simply don't exist in that kind of futile entirely too human experience. We choose to experience life and love in a different manner.

[Batutta]

As long as it's working for ya, good on ya!...Now I feel like I have to go pimp slap my wife for no good reason just to restore balance to the universe.

[Chamber005]

As long as it's working for ya, good on ya!...Now I feel like I have to go pimp slap my wife for no good reason just to restore balance to the universe.

ROFL!

You almost made me joke on my pretzel roll, man!!!

[Jim Brennan]

I can only imagine that you find it impossible to believe because you've seen something different portrayed in fiction and then imitated in life by people around you again and again and again. Me and my girl aren't a part of that cycle. We don't exist in this reality where people who love each other have problems with them. How could I? She exists as she does, I exist as I do. To have "problems" with each other would be taking on a role of...judge, inspector, evaluator. I do not judge, inspect or evaluate my love or the girl with whom I am in love with. Fiction has created, because of a desperate need for story's conflict, a kind of reflection of love and humanity that isn't accurate, but because people have no connection with the self, they watch others who have watched others who have watched others behave a certain way and have deemed it rational and correct.


Actually, it's the opposite. Our collective need for the dramatic storytelling experience stems directly from the needs of our psyche. Those are needs that we can repress at our peril, but they are in all of us. We relate to that which we experience, wish to experience or need to experience in some way. It is catharsis. While there can be some truth to the phrase "life imitates art" it is most often the case that art reflects life. We do not typically seek or foster conflict in our relationships because of a movie we saw, a book we read, or even the entire catalogue that has gone before us. That is implying that dramatic storytelling corrupts rather than enriches.

I am truly at a loss to explain it any further. From my point of view what you seem to be describing is a complete denial of negative emotions within a relationship. Which, in my limited opinion, appears to be not only impossible, but dangerous. Those things are there if you are a human being, and they will find a way out.

But I will say no more. I hope that you are right and I am completely wrong. I wish you exactly the bliss you seem to be describing. I truly do.

[Chris Light]

my wife and i have had some serious rifts. i lived in my car for 3 months after one of those rifts. that was 6 years ago. but one thing that i have never done, or will ever do, is raise my voice to her. i didnt have to go out of my way to avoid doing this, as i am a fairly soft spoken person by nature, but i have yelled and screamed though other things (i have been a rock n roll drummer for almost 25 years)...but my wife does not deserve such treatment, just because i am pissed off at something.

maybe i didn't touch on the exact point here, but it was something i just thought about.

Chris

[ChipG]

I did like this movie but you guys ruined this thread. Damn! :)

[Jim Brennan]

:)
I did like this movie but you guys ruined this thread. Damn! :)

[Simon Höfer]

Liked it quite alot :)

[Chamber005]

Actually, it's the opposite. Our collective need for the dramatic storytelling experience stems directly from the needs of our psyche. Those are needs that we can repress at our peril, but they are in all of us. We relate to that which we experience, wish to experience or need to experience in some way. It is catharsis. While there can be some truth to the phrase "life imitates art" it is most often the case that art reflects life. We do not typically seek or foster conflict in our relationships because of a movie we saw, a book we read, or even the entire catalogue that has gone before us. That is implying that dramatic storytelling corrupts rather than enriches.

I am truly at a loss to explain it any further. From my point of view what you seem to be describing is a complete denial of negative emotions within a relationship. Which, in my limited opinion, appears to be not only impossible, but dangerous. Those things are there if you are a human being, and they will find a way out.

But I will say no more. I hope that you are right and I am completely wrong. I wish you exactly the bliss you seem to be describing. I truly do.

Yeah, we should probably finish this up as we've gone way off topic, right?

I can't completely agree with you regarding life not imitating art. I'd wager that 90% of what you see teenagers do in their day-to-day stems directly from what they've seen in artificial representations of real life. I think in the beginning, yes, the dramatic arts were more of a reflection of the times, "Romeo and Juliet" a perfect example of two people in love I think we all can agree. But as a culture, we now have people watching other people's supposed "reality" and then going out and imitating it -- as animals we all have a wont to do.

I know we have to speak as artists and that we must defend our freedom to produce it, but it's no secret that for many, many people art has become life. Artists are now the parents of American culture. We may not carry the responsibilities, but artists influence -- it's what they're supposed to do. It's what made us, once upon a time, revolutionists.

Catharsis exists, it does -- but let's not pretend that it's not an archaic notion. And if anything offers catharsis in our time it's video games, not dramatic arts. The dramatic arts may lend some enlightenment, some entertainment, but I can't remember the last time I existed through a genuine experience during a film that moved me to a state of true catharsis. Catharsis was needed in a time when we couldn't parachute from airplanes or grab a shotgun and blow discs out of the sky or join the UFC and knock someone's brains out or grab a paintball gun and shoot our best friend in the nads.

But to the state of my relationship, I promise there is nothing pent up, repressed or conflicted. In my relationship I exist in absolute love. Only in these times could that notion seem so alien and absurd. I find nothing wrong with who she is, as each aspect of her creates the whole -- the entirety of she who I love forever. Love is a perfect entity, and even though we as people aren't perfect, we certainly should have enough knowledge and presence of self to not let the trite nothingness of daily existence interfere with such a perfect state of being, right?

It's all good!

;)

Some things are ALL GOOD.

:D

[Giganova]

Horribly cheesy movie, unwatchable. No wonder it won tons of Oscars. Hollywood likes that cheesy crap.

[diego1235467]

I absolutely loved it. I've seen it four times now. The commentary with Danny Boyle is fantastic.

[pathfinder]

Horribly cheesy movie, unwatchable. No wonder it won tons of Oscars. Hollywood likes that cheesy crap.

One man's cheesy crap is another man's tasty morsel. :thumbup::cool: