OT: Movie you MUST see: Slumdog Millionaire

[Kevin Wild]

If you guys get a chance to see Danny Boyles' new movie, see it and bring friends. Simply a beautiful piece of work. We were lucky enough to catch it at Austin Film Festival and it is easily going to be one of the best movies released in the next year, in my opinion.

Great story, great acting, great cinematography...it has it all. Can't say enough about it...nearly everyone walking out loved it, too.

Kevin

[Bruce Allen]

Totally agree. Watched it last night and loved it. Puts everything I've seen shot on RED to shame, actually. Also, every smart, cute girl I know loves it too ;)

I think we should start a poll:

"Which movie will get the higher RottenTomatoes rating for the period of Oct 2008 - Oct 2009?"

a) Slumdog Millionaire (shot on SI-2K)
b) any of the films shot principally on RED

If we take monetary bets with all the REDfanboys, maybe we can be on our way to owning a nice little Scarlet.

What do you think, Kevin?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Ramesh Jai]

Totally agree. Watched it last night and loved it. Puts everything I've seen shot on RED to shame, actually. Also, every smart, cute girl I know loves it too ;)

I think we should start a poll:

"Which movie will get the higher RottenTomatoes rating for the period of Oct 2008 - Oct 2009?"

a) Slumdog Millionaire (shot on SI-2K)
b) any of the films shot principally on RED

If we take monetary bets with all the REDfanboys, maybe we can be on our way to owning a nice little Scarlet.

What do you think, Kevin?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
You still think that a camera is responsible for beautiful shots? Ok.

[Cüneyt Kaya]

i dont think that michael schuhmacher can win the grand prix of monaco with a bycacle
and i dont think that Mr. XY will win the grand prix of monaco by driving a ferrari.

its the combination that makes the breathtaking possible.

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I know Anthony Dod Mantle very well (have worked with him a couple of times). I know he's very found of the RED camera. After all he's using it on Antichrist right now.

He must be one of the funniest guys to have around on set. Shit lighting :biggrin: but his humour compensates for that :sarcasm:

[Bruce Allen]

You still think that a camera is responsible for beautiful shots? Ok.

I *still* think?!?! Somehow I think you got my meaning backwards. Sorry if I wasn't clear. FYI, Last time I checked I was saying what nice stuff you could get with an HV20 if you lit it well.

One of the things I like about Slumdog is it once again proves you DON'T NEED A FRIKKIN RED. Just talent. And a little money and luck. And as Weirdcrew says, a sense of humor ;)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

You still think that a camera is responsible for beautiful shots? Ok.

Sometimes it is actually.

[Rudi Herbert]

Is it a certainty that the movie was shot on the SI-2K? I didn't see any mention of it on the Silicon Imaging page and they're usually quick to brag about anything done with their camera. I've been wanting to see this camera's images on the big screen for a while now.

[Bruce Allen]

Is it a certainty that the movie was shot on the SI-2K? I didn't see any mention of it on the Silicon Imaging page and they're usually quick to brag about anything done with their camera. I've been wanting to see this camera's images on the big screen for a while now.

It's shot on film and SI-2K - they used the little handheld rig to run around nimbly... and it looks like most of the film was shot that way, haha. You can definitely tell when it's on SI-2K. But you have to be a geek to care ;)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Sanjin Jukic]

I *still* think?!?! Somehow I think you got my meaning backwards. Sorry if I wasn't clear. FYI, Last time I checked I was saying what nice stuff you could get with an HV20 if you lit it well.

One of the things I like about Slumdog is it once again proves you DON'T NEED A FRIKKIN RED. Just talent. And a little money and luck. And as Weirdcrew says, a sense of humor ;)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Buying a RED1 doesn't mean buying a talent.

Also owning RED1 even with a set of MP lenses doesn't make you a successful filmmaker :) .

Great equipment doesn't help a weak talent.

Only your personal and original movie maker talent together with a great story+idea makes

you different from the crowd of ordinary RED owners.

Soderbergh is just one of the great examples...

Two CHE movies are much better then one Slumdog Millionaire movie....

Also shooting on SI-2K doesn't mean immediate creativity at all :) .

I saw a lot of crap shot with that camera system...

About a "little money" RED body is a cheaper then SI-2K body

that also has more versatile lens mount (IMS) that I "pirated" on RED1 :devil: .

Technical specifications for Slumdog Millionaire > > > (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1010048/technical)

[Bruce Allen]

Two CHE movies are much better then one Slumdog Millionaire movie....

BWAHAHA! Wanna bet?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema@gmail.com

[Sanjin Jukic]

BWAHAHA! Wanna bet?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema@gmail.com

Bruce!

Always!!!!!!!!!!

"Slumdog Millionare" is a film that sharply shows how Bollywood wants to meet Hollywood, that's a pure kitsch and that can even drive millions to see it in the cinema (mostly India).

CHE movies are a pure anti-Hollywood a sort of concept art movies with a very clear aesthetic approach to CHE character and his time that could also drive millions in the cinema (but out of US, mostly in Latino and Hispanic world).

[jpp]

One of the things I like about Slumdog is it once again proves you DON'T NEED A FRIKKIN RED. Just talent. And a little money and luck.

Change "a little money" to "a lot of money", and you'd speak truer. There's no disputing that you could make a masterpiece with an HV20, but probably not for $30 or $30,000 or $300,000. Even $3,000,000 might be it pushing it today.

There's a strange alchemy here -- inexplicably large sums seem to be necessary to create persuasive dramatic illusions, if one wants to venture beyond the mannerisms and exhausted dramatic conventions of low-budget filmmaking -- but that and possible alternative strategies is a thread for another day.

[Kevin Wild]

Guys, as I said in another post, if you're still looking at shots, resolution & camera quality after 5 minutes into a film...it ain't working as a story. I promise you, a half hour into Slumdog Millionaire, you won't care if it's shot on film, RED or an HV20. It just doesn't matter...the STORY is that good.

Tell you what...one of my favorite films of last year was "Once." That was shot on cheap SONY cameras, mostly handheld. Yet, it was awesome.

So...it's good to be geeky with all this 28k resolution stuff...but it's also good to remember what REALLY gets everyone's blood pumping...great stories, good directing, good acting, etc.

Go see "Slumdog." You'll see what I mean. :-)

[jpp]

Tell you what...one of my favorite films of last year was "Once." That was shot on cheap SONY cameras, mostly handheld. Yet, it was awesome.

There's endless puzzlement in all this, you really can't generalize. I found "Once" to be insufferable -- truly. And while DV resolution had little to do with that reaction, it's possible to conceive another similar film with better production values and some dramatic alterations which might have altered it significantly for the better (for this one viewer).

Where markets, marketing and tastes converge, nobody knows anything, except that of all the potential defects and/or reasons for a failure to connect with audiences, the camera specs are least likely to be determining factors. But, at the same time, just about no one is able to accept emotionally that camera resolution is near the bottom of concerns he/she should be worrying about, at least on low budget productions. Which is maybe why filmmakers with very few resources are haunting reduser day and night, including national holidays.

[Kevin Wild]

JPP, I won't argue over an opinion. I loved "Once," you didn't. That's fine. A LOT of people did, as was a pretty big hit.

I think you are smart enough to get my point: ultimately it is story that matters to audiences. I would take a great story shot on inferior equipment over a lame story shot on great equipment any day. I think you agree, but I could barely understand your post. Maybe it is holiday-brain.

[Obin Olson]

Best film i have ever seen

[Kevin Wild]

Glad you liked it, Obin!

It seems every year I go to Austin Film Festival, you can just feel there is one that stands out that most everyone will love. Last year I came back raving about "Juno" and sure enough, that one took off.

"Slumdog" will have a bigger hill to climb with it having a lot of subtitles and no American name actors...but what an incredible movie. Great directing, acting, writing...has it all, imo.

I can't wait to see it again...opens in Raleigh Dec 19th

[Paul Savarese]

Beautiful pictures are made of the following:

A good eye for:

1.) Emotion
2.) Composition
3.) Color and Light

Those are the tools I like depend on.

[guy fancher]

There's no disputing that you could make a masterpiece with an HV20, but probably not for $30 or $30,000 or $300,000. Even $3,000,000 might be it pushing it today.

i think this is a very sad attitude to have. you absolutely could create a masterpiece with an hv20 and a few thousand dollars. you'd just have to have a story that doesn't require a lot physical resources and an enthusiastic cast and crew that doesn't require a lot of money.

see "primer". it was made for basically $0 aside from the $7000 spent on 35mm film stock and processing. it might fall short of being a masterpiece. but not by much.

[Petr Dvorak]

Beautiful pictures are made of the following:

A good eye for:

1.) Emotion
2.) Composition
3.) Color and Light

Those are the tools I like depend on.


Beautifull films are made by geniuses. Thats all.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Also add a hard workers.

[Albert Armes]

Trailer looks nice. Great looking digitally shot movies are great for all.

[jpp]

i think this is a very sad attitude to have. you absolutely could create a masterpiece with an hv20 and a few thousand dollars.

Then where are those masterpieces, since there must be hundreds of thousands of HDV cameras out there, and countless DV cameras before that, and Hi8 before that, and large numbers with access to 16mm before that, and who knows how many, since the indie boom began in the late 80s, with the highest aspirations and access to some camera or other?

If you're seeking nothing but photographed performances, and the scope of the thing doesn't demand production value ("slacker films" suited this method for a few years, just as the mumblecore stuff is trying to do it today), or you take the approach of something like "Primer", which works largely in the brain, you may be able to make a decent , admirable or interesting film for a few thousand dollars.

But this kind of successful no-budget oddity is not sustainable as either art house cinema or popular entertainment. The only people it really interests (when it succeeds in attracting some notice), are other would-be filmmakers, because they're also looking for the secret. And as much as one can admire what was done with "Primer" for so little money, what he did is not a basis for movie-making and has little to do with cinema (capital "C"), understood as a full expressive medium.


you'd just have to have a story that doesn't require a lot physical resources and an enthusiastic cast and crew that doesn't require a lot of money.

"Just"? This is probably the most elusive formula of all of time in the arts. Millions aspire to it, and who succeeds? Kevin Smith, Ed Burns, or Robert Rodriguez? Are these great filmmakers? I think I could help you out here by citing some far better no-budget filmmakers and films, but the truth is, they weren't great successes, it didn't work out well.

But by all means, keep trying. It's always possible. I think reality and past experience argue against it, but who knows.

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Then where are those masterpieces, since there must be hundreds of thousands of HDV cameras out there, and countless DV cameras before that, and Hi8 before that, and large numbers with access to 16mm before that, and who knows how many, since the indie boom began in the late 80s, with the highest aspirations and access to some camera or other?

'Festen' by Thomas Vinterberg is an excellent example. If you haven't seen it you should.

[jpp]

'Festen' by Thomas Vinterberg is an excellent example. If you haven't seen it you should.

Don't share your admiration for "Festen", but the budget for that film was over $1.5 million, and it employed the best actors and crew in Denmark. Not exactly a no-budget film, despite the use of a 1-chip DV camcorder and no lights.

I don't know the budget for Slumdog, and haven't seen it, but the fact that you can shoot a relatively expensive and successful movie with a cheap camera doesn't mean that all one needs is a cheap camera to shoot a successful movie.....

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Not exactly a no-budget film, despite the use of a 1-chip DV camera and no lights.

That's true but the question is then what you mean when you say that no low budget films has made it?

I thought that Pi by Darren Aronofsky was brilliant and it was by my knowledge a success for what it was? That was a low budget film.

So was The Brick and I think they made it well (yes it was on film and was 500K, but still).

So of course you can make films with no means that will appeal to a greater audience.

The problem is that they generally fail because they can't get the time to make them great, actors are all inexperienced and that generally leads to bad acting capabilities and so on. But it doesn't mean that you can make it. I think the problem is that when it's made with such little money people tend to concentrate in making them look as great as possible instead of concentrating on the content. This is of course understandable since they're making it so they can get funding for their next project and want to show that they can make high quality with very little means.

Content is always the mayor key in story telling everything else is secondary. Still important, but IMHO secondary.

So if you concentrate in trying to say something with your film then your on the right track.

[jpp]

I thought that Pi by Darren Aronofsky was brilliant and it was by my knowledge a success for what it was? That was a low budget film.

So was The Brick and I think they made it well (yes it was on film and was 500K, but still).

So of course you can make films with no means that will appeal to a greater audience.

Pi struck this viewer as greatly overrated, and (arguably) he lifted it from a far better but obscure Argentine film called "Moebius", along with other pilfering from world cinema (Welles' "The Trial" is the other obvious source).

But, good or bad, one thing is for certain: neither Pi nor Brick drew much of an audience, by commercial standards. Aronofsky certainly got a career out of it, which is great for him. But we were talking about masterpieces, not careers.


The problem is that they generally fail because they can't get the time to make them great, actors are all inexperienced and that generally leads to bad acting capabilities and so on.

In other words, films fail because they don't have money or aren't any good. I can agree with that much.:biggrin:

edit: for imdb hounds, note correction to "Moebius" spelling above.

[guy fancher]

But, good or bad, one thing is for certain: neither Pi nor Brick drew much of an audience, by commercial standards. Aronofsky certainly got a career out of it, which is great for him. But we were talking about masterpieces, not careers.


you're wrong. pi drew a very large audience by commercial standards. it made back 60 times its budget in the theaters and has been wildly successful on dvd. it is by definition a commercial success. i know many people who consider it one of their favorite films. Its commonly referred to as a masterpiece of low-budget filmmaking, science-fiction, and cinema in general.

i'm sorry you thought it was overrated but you are simply wrong about it not "drawing an audience" by commercial standards. it is a film that was made for $64,000 and could be considered a success on almost every level.

[jpp]

Reliable figures for DVD sales are hard to come by, but Pi had a theatrical gross of about $3,000,000, which is very good for an American independent film, but hardly counts as a commercial success, given the cost of distributing and marketing a film.

So while Pi earned a high multiple of its production costs (I don't, however, know where you get the 60x figure), its actual profitability is nowhere near that amount in the theatrical realm, after acquisition, distribution and marketing costs are subtracted.

The idea here isn't to quibble or argue over figures, but just to point out that even a relatively successful film like Pi doesn't present theatrical distributors with a sustainable business model. Besides, that was ten years ago and theatrical distribution costs are much higher now.

[guy fancher]

Pi was made for $64,000.
Its print and advertising budget was $300,000.
It made $3,221,152 domestically and $1,457,361 internationally.
THAT IS A COMMERCIAL SUCCESS.

(http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1998/0PI.php)

Besides most money for films of this nature is made on dvd sales anyways.

Pi has sold very well on dvd. I know this because i know many people who own it. People who aren't even film buffs. I know a girl who owns like 4 movies, 3 of which are romantic comedies and then Pi. Urban Outfitters was selling Pi for awhile. It has become a part of popular culture.
I don't have the exact dvd sales but here's something i found after a quick search on the internet~

http://www.dvdjournal.com/previousnews/1999/news199902.html
Reel.com have announced their top-ten-selling DVDs from last week:
1. Gone with the Wind
2. The Blues Brothers
3. The Devil's Advocate
4. Face/Off
5. Altered States
6. Armageddon
7. Primary Colors
8. Out of Sight
9. Pi
10. Kiss The Girls

Pi won the Sundance film festival.

Pi launched the career of Daren Aronofsky.

Pi is a success. It is an arguable masterpiece of a movie that was made on a micro-budget. It made a very good profit. Pi is a success.

Pi proves that it is possible to make a movie on a micro-budget and to make it well. In the case of Pi, the low-budget rough edges can actually enhance the atmosphere of the movie. It doesn't happen often but it can be done.

i don't know what more you could possibly want?

..now if you're only criteria for a successful film is something that grosses 100million dollars at the box office?.. there's always Blair Witch Project :sarcasm:

[jpp]

Pi proves that it is possible to make a movie on a micro-budget and to make it well. In the case of Pi, the low-budget rough edges can actually enhance the atmosphere of the movie. It doesn't happen often but it can be done.

As already noted, distribution costs are far higher today than they were 10 years ago, which is the main reason most art-house distributors have since gone out of business, and the studios have shut down their art-house divisions. For the record, Pi also cost more than $64K before it was in distributable form -- probably closer to $200K-$300K. But for the sake of the argument, let's accept your production and distribution figures.

Nobody ever said this kind of success is impossible, or that careers can't be established through low-budget filmmaking. The question is, is no- and low-budget indie film a sustainable and realistic filmmaking model today, and has it promoted high quality in the past? Judging from the results of the last 20 years and the virtual collapse of the American indie distribution market, and comparing films and directors which emerge from American indie cinema to world art-house cinema, I for one would say no.

But, I'll concede your point: 10 years ago Darren Aronofsky took a chance, or his parents took a chance (social class is not irrelevant here), and had a great success, compared to other American independent films. What that means for the present, or American art-house cinema, is harder to say.

[Julio Quintana]

I think jpp is technically correct, but the reason is directly related to talent. There are very few brilliant writers in the world. Incredible cinematographers are rare. As are great actors, editors, music composers, and sound designers. Because of their rarity, all of the masters in each of these disciplines cost money. Usually a lot of money.
So in indie filmmaking, you get the guy who is writer/director/cinematographer/editor/composer/sound designer, and it's very unlikely that he is a master at all these disciplines, and weakness in any of these areas can destroy a good film. But if he is that one-in-a-million, then there's no reason why he can't make a masterpiece with the digital technologies available today.

[Hrvoje Simic]

Just saw it last night. Great movie.
Danny Boyle rocks.

From Trainspotting (his first movie I saw), through "The Beach", "28 Days Later" & "Sunshine", I love the way he feels the story and the rhythm, how it's edited, even the music choices in his movies are great.

I'm totally getting this one. A+

[Tom Lowe]

I saw Slumdog and liked it. But once you figure out the formula in the opening minutes, much of the rest of the picture is quite predictable.

[Seung Han]

his first movie is shallow grave. it launched Ewan McGregor's career. its a wicked small film. I highly recommend it.

[Kevin Wild]

I saw Slumdog and liked it. But once you figure out the formula in the opening minutes, much of the rest of the picture is quite predictable.

Not every movie has to have some big "M. Night" twist at the end. This is probably an entire discussion and topic, but I sometimes think the art of storytelling has been hurt by "the big twist ending." Watch "The Straight Story." It's brilliant from David Lynch and to me, was his thumbing his nose at the 90's, 2000's big twist movies.

So...I don't agree. I also really wonder if you knew whether or not the answer written on the bathroom mirror by the host was correct or not. Seriously? You knew 100%? I didn't. :-)

[Hrvoje Simic]

I saw Slumdog and liked it. But once you figure out the formula in the opening minutes, much of the rest of the picture is quite predictable.

I think that the predictability is what Boyle used here intentionally as a building block.
How his storytelling filled the blanks is what made this movie great, IMO.

[Brandon Fraley]

I personally really didn't like this movie. I thought the screenplay was pedestrian, the whole concept removes any suspense, and the ending was unfullfilling (which is apparently not a word, but i digress). What was the deal with his brother's sacrifice? Completely unnecessary, and a tub full of cash? ...what?

Anyway, I understand that I'm the only person in the world that didn't like it. I wish "Synecdoche, New York" received half the acclaim of this film, oh well...

[Joyfool]

I think that the predictability is what Boyle used here intentionally as a building block.
How his storytelling filled the blanks is what made this movie great, IMO.

Although the episodic nature of the story renders it predictable (at times) it enhanced the commentary on the social mores of the story's pov. I thought it to be brilliant. Truly the only flaw I saw in the pic was the development of the love story from the girl's pov. I just didn't feel her invested...it was one of those "i have enough love for the both of us" kind of scenarios which I find weak in general.

Still give it A+ tho.

Tell you what...this pic raises SI2K prestige...that's good for RED as well (rising tide lifts all boats)

[Tom Lowe]

I thought the brother's redemption was very predictable, and as Brandon said, it was staged in a ludicrous manner.... in a bathtub full of cash? Other scenes, like the girl using her hand to lower the gun, seemed pulled right out of Braveheart. I thought the "tip" in the bathroom was also predictable, because that host kept treating the kid with contempt and mocking him with degrading names, etc, so why would he suddenly help the kid? Everything having to do with the girl was predictable. The use of MIA's Paper Planes was really sort of trite and tired. Maybe if I hadn't been bombarded with that song on every station in LA for the last year it might have worked.

Again, IMO, it's a good film, but by no means a great film.

[Kevin Wild]

Disagreeing is fun.

I hated "Titanic." Talking about predictable... :-)

[Brandon Fraley]

Disagreeing is fun.

I hated "Titanic." Talking about predictable... :-)

lol

Obviously Tom appreciated the flick more than I, but it's nice to know someone is at least partially on my side :)

EDIT: BTW, I love Straight Story.

[Tom Lowe]

Okay, I think what we need next is a "Titanic vs Slumdog" thread...hahahaha. :)

[Brandon Fraley]

Okay, I think what we need next is a "Titanic vs Slumdog" thread...hahahaha. :)

To be honest I've been meaning to revisit Titanic for the last year or two. I'll have to get on that and get back to you :)

Interesting tid bit, while researching something else, I happened upon the fact that in D.C. there is a memorial statue for those who died on the Titanic. It's a figure posed it's arms out. The scene where Leo lifts Kate at the front of the ship is meant to evoke that statue. Knowing that makes the scene seem just a lad less silly :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Women%27s_Titanic_Memorial_NYTimes_-_1914crop.jpg/523px-Women%27s_Titanic_Memorial_NYTimes_-_1914crop.jpg

[jpp]

Okay, I think what we need next is a "Titanic vs Slumdog" thread

Maybe on a double bill with the "Godzilla vs. Mothra" thread?

Questions of quality aside, this film is a great case study in book adaptation, for those interested in the matter. The screenwriter took the premise and the flashback structure from the novel, but changed virtually all the details. The book, in general, is much darker. For example, the reason he gets tortured by the police in the novel isn't because the game show host despises him, but only because the show's promoter, a white, non-Indian, doesn't have the prize money and is looking for a way to weasel out of paying.

Anyway, the adaptation is highly instructive, if you're looking to make a commercially successful movie from a despairing source.