Thread: Slumdog is Ridiculous

Rushdie dubs 'Slumdog Millionaire' ridiculous

British-Indian author Salman Rushdie has attacked the plot of multiple Oscar-winning film "Slumdog Millionaire" as a "patently ridiculous conceit".

Rushdie wrote in Britain's Guardian newspaper that the central feature of the film -- that a boy from the Mumbai slums manages to succeed on the Indian TV version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" -- "beggars belief."
"This is a patently ridiculous conceit, the kind of fantasy writing that gives fantasy writing a bad name," the author of "The Satanic Verses" said in the article published Saturday.
Rushdie said the central weakness of the film -- which won eight Oscars -- was that it was adapted from a book by Indian diplomat-novelist Vikas Swarup called "Q&A" which is itself "a corny potboiler, with a plot that defies belief."
"It is a plot device faithfully preserved by the film-makers, and lies at the heart of the weirdly renamed Slumdog Millionaire. As a result the film, too, beggars belief," wrote Rushdie, who was born in Mumbai.
Rushdie signed off a long lament about the quality of film adaptations of books by saying: "We can only hope that the worst is over, and that better movies, better musicals and better times lie ahead."
The author last month marked the 20th anniversary of the Islamic death sentence imposed on him by Iran following the publication of "The Satanic Verses".

Rushdie dubs 'Slumdog Millionaire' ridiculous


i agree totally. it's an over-wrought, convoluted story with an entirely predictable ending. the fact that it got so many oscars shows the current sickly state of movies.

I really enjoyed it.

I think 6 is too many Oscars.

But it deserved one or two.

The Wrestler was far better. I suppose it's too close to reality for most of the plonkers who voted.

Originally Posted by zehner

[B]Salman Rushdie has attacked the plot of multiple Oscar-winning film "Slumdog Millionaire" as a "patently ridiculous conceit".

Mr. Rushdie is going to run out of places to hide.

It's always been political. There was the year when they said "let's give Oscars to black people". This year it was "Let's give Oscars to India so they feel better about the bombings in Mumbai".

I think Marlon Brando did it better when he sent an indian named Sacheen Littlefeather to say he was refusing the Oscar. Classic.

YouTube - Marlon Brando's Oscar® win for " The Godfather"

I thought Slumdog was brilliant. It was entertaining. And that's what I want from a movie. I want 90 minutes of escapism.
I watched 'Doubt' the other night. Philip Seymour Hoffman a truly brilliant actor? Yes. Meryl Streep a legend of the big screen? Yes. A thought-provoking story? Yes. Entertaining? No.

i suppose the difference lies in the perception of movies.

take a flick like The Wrestler with one of the greatest performances by the old battler Mickey Rourke and one of the modern eras best directors and you have a great movie deserved of praise as a work of art. very entertaining too imo and also very memorable.

Originally Posted by zehner

take a flick like The Wrestler with one of the greatest performances by the old battler Mickey Rourke and one of the modern eras best directors and you have a great movie deserved of praise as a work of art. very entertaining too imo and also very memorable.

Yes, I loved that too! I've watched it more than once already.

I enjoyed it for its entertainment value as Phil pointed out...but typically over-hyped, over-done, certainly predictable and just over the top in its publicity, blech!

tho the acting itself was well-done, it's not a movie I need to revisit yearly.

I don't think I've been to the movie theatre for five or six years

'The Satanic Verses' however,... I've got a handy copy at home on the bookshelf!