|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
|
|
|
|
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 12-14-2008 07:35 PM
This movie is extraordinarily cheesy and contrived. It has plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. I found the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire stuff to be way more interesting than the flashbacks, and yet it wasn't nearly as compelling as an actual episode of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. And I don't even watch that show.
Here's a question. Why do people consider the photography in this thing to be good?
And maybe this has something to do with the fact that I drank a large Coke Zero while watching the movie, and had to pee really bad during the last half hour, but it seemed to go on forever. I was, like, two reels ahead of this movie every step of the way, and I just wanted them to get on with it so that I could go to the bathroom. And then it keeps going through the credits! (which, admittedly was the best part)
Every time Boyle comes out with a movie, there's some "friend" of mine that say, "Oh, man, it's awesome! You have to see it!" And then I do, and it sucks, and I swear I'll never see another one of his movies again. Someday, I'll learn...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-14-2008 08:40 PM
Okay...so I was at the AFI/Silver on Saturday on other business and this film happened to be playing...it had been doing well so I decided to take a peek...
Slumdog Millionare tells the story, in flashback, of a kid born in poverty, in India, that finds himself in an Indian version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionare?"
We learn how this young adult is doing well on the show, despite his obvious lack of scholarly upbringing. As some have noted, the story is contrived in a Forest Gump sort of way. His life experiences just happen to fit the questions being asked of him. The story is told in flash-back.
For me the story was pretty poor...the acting was pretty darn good, the photography was incompetent and the sound, while clean, was uninspired...though the music was good.
I'm guessing that film was used, sparingly, in the photography as the grains are uber-bolder sized and there are horizontal steaks, like scan lines, in all dark portions of any frame, so video was in there somewhere. I can not state enough just how piss-poor the quality of image is on this movie. I'm amazed that it was released in "scope." There wasn't enough data on the image to fill the screen.
I'll give the movie about a 2/5...mostly for the acting...again superb.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|