mweir145 wrote:Slumdog Millionaire: 9/10
While it was an incredibly original story, some parts really did remind me of City of God (which, if you've seen it, isn't a bad thing). Also, I'd say this is the best of the Danny Boyle movies that I've seen, which is also high praise. The visuals were impressive, and the acting was also superb. Boyle was able to tie together the main character's life experiences with his time on Millionaire in a very interesting way, and it made for a great ending, IMO.
Slumdog Millionaire definitely lived up to the hype for me, and I wouldn't be surprised if it did in fact win the Oscar.
I had high hopes for this movie, but was extremely let down. Boyle failed to get it done again, as he has with every film since Trainspotting. Really, here's the thing about Slumdog Millionaire: it wasn't a good movie. It was a classic example of a film that accidentally hit an impressive peak in the first 45 minutes and then fell victim to a director who wasn't good enough to take the story anywhere interesting. The culture of Bombay is ridiculously fascinating and provides more than ample material to write a compelling story (check out Maximum City), which seemed inevitable in the first part of the movie. Then suddenly we get a hokey love story with an anticlimactic, saccharine ending, and a really lame game show plot device, complete with almost-missed cell phone calls and the ridiculous and offensively simplistic death of his brother. That movie gets the bozack. It seemed like a love story written by a 14-year-old who has never been kissed. The plot was great until it stopped making sense and spiralled into the Legend of Zelda. The acting was great until all the characters became grownups, at which point the movie became an EXTREME music video. It's just not that good a movie and I don't understand why it got all this acclaim. I think all the critics I heard raving about it stopped watching after 75 minutes.