comment #1

Colin says ...

I haven't seen it yet. Is it that infuriating? My friends either say its a modern fairy tale, or cliche'd garbage.

comment #2

actionman says ...

reposted from a previous thread:

Slumdog is a really, really good movie with amazing technical finesse behind it, accompanied by a sizzling soundtrack, and a well-earned happy ending. It's also extremely entertaining. And there's nothing wrong with any of that.

comment #3

MindlessObamaton says ...

Wells: No one is kvetching because all 5 of the nommed pics are bland to awful. Of the blandness, SM rises to the top to take the gold. PTA shoulds sat on TWBB another year. He'd a cleaned up this year!!!

comment #4

Colin says ...

In my mind Ben Button, Milk deserve their places. Revolutionary Road should take the Reader's spot. 2/3 of either The Wrestler, TDK, WALL-e

comment #5

JeffK says ...

I've been tracking the Slumdog backlash here and there, and its getting ridiculous. Just look at the plot of the movie. The character's life is conveniently intertwined with 15 questions in a game show. If it were one question, that could be explained as coincidence. 15 questions? That's fantasy. The audience accepts this and then takes the cinematic ride. Yes, the film is a fairy tale, and yeah, its pretty easy to divide it up and point out cliches, uses of style, uses of music, but the key phrase to apply here is "greater than the sum of its parts".

comment #6

dinther says ...

Lim's article is evidence of (a) a poseur who embodies everything that is wrong with film critics; (b) a cliche-ridden, contrarian attack on an easy target; (c) a cry for attention amidst the flotsam of the Titanic that is contemporary film criticism.

Honestly, who cares what he thinks? It's not that hard: Slumdog works. Maybe it's not the greatest film ever made, but it works.

And yet, of all the stock schlock that currently matriculates in our theaters, Lim singles out this film. This schtick of film-hating cynics who target popular movies is sooo tired and predictable. Add Lim to the pile of people whose articles I will never read.

comment #7

marinmovies says ...

MILK is Gus Van Sant at his absolute worst Good Will Hunting/Finding Forrester level of awfulness; the other three films are fine at best. It's a lousy group this year, and SM is a sweet, compelling, very good, if not great, film and more importantly it doesn't reek of stale old hollywood like the others do.

comment #8

Sabina E says ...

I'm so fucking sick of the Slumdog backlash.

It's a good movie, period. I love this movie, and I can relate to some of these characters.

There, iI'm already done with this bullshit.

comment #9

Sabina E says ...

"This schtick of film-hating cynics who target popular movies is sooo tired and predictable. Add Lim to the pile of people whose articles I will never read."

hear, hear.

comment #10

Mark B says ...

Me, too. One of the most entertaining, well-made pieces of the cinema of the past several years. The backlash is getting out-of-hand.

comment #11

Chicago48 says ...

If anyone will search my messages, I predicted that the Indian population would not take to this movie because it paints India/mumbai in a bad light; basically, the Muslims are shown to be the persecuted people....and the same thing happened with Water a few years ago. They couldn't even make the movie in India because of it's topic - marriage by older men to young girls. and how young girl widows are shunned by society. There are some subjects Indians don't want the world to know about and poverty, the under-class Muslims and young bride marriage are just a few. If this had been a happy-go-lucky musical -- yes.
India aint that great a place to live in in my opinion.

comment #12

Chicago48 says ...

IMO Slumdog was cleverly written. Period. They could take that same storyline and put American actors in the roles and it would still be a well written movie.

comment #13

Gordon27 says ...

"I haven't seen it yet. Is it that infuriating? My friends either say its a modern fairy tale, or cliche'd garbage."

Colin - I loved it, but I think it's definitely a movie that can rub you the wrong way. You do have to go with it, at some point, and if you expect actual realism from the plot, you'll be disappointed [the country and the background and the characters do feel real, just not anything that happens].

Also, it does have the standard Danny Boyle problem, where the first two acts of the movie are practically plotless, but have an amazing emotional thruline that carries everything... and then, suddenly, there's a gearshift in the third act when the "plot" really kicks in, almost to the point of the movie stopping and saying, "Okay, now that you know all of that stuff about what's going on, here's what happens." But it's much less jarring than 'Sunshine' was, and it fits the movie.

comment #14

Sabina E says ...

Chicago48, sadly, you are right. I loved "Water" when it came out a little less than 2 or 3 years ago, and I wasn't that surprised when it got a negative reaction in India.

Water was written, directed and produced by Indians. Another Indian film, "FIRE" (also directed by Deepa Mehta) is still banned, even though it came out in the late 1990s. many Indians just don't want to be told the truth-- they just want popcorn, masala, and glitzy, pale skinned stars who can easily pass for white women.

I KNEW that Slumdog would get a bad reaction out of India, too... go figure.

comment #15

Gordon27 says ...

When you read Dennis Lim's take on how everything in 'Slumdog' is cliched, you should probably keep in mind that he wrote the most positive review of 'Milk' that I have read, and said that it was powerful enough to have changed the vote on Prop 8 if it had been released earlier. He also gave the only positive review of 'Inland Empire' ever, apparently.

comment #16

Colin says ...

Gordon27,

Thanks. I will probably pass on it then, I like films that more strewn in the realistic vein.

comment #17

Colin says ...

jeff, dinther, deafbrown

I think people are allowed to dislike the movie. Isn't that the point of film criticism?

comment #18

Gordon27 says ...

Colin - the funny part about watching arguments like that is when people try to convince the other person that their opinion is wrong. I have never seen somebody convince another person to change their opinion of a movie using rhetoric, but I have seen plenty of people try. (I've even been part of the attempts, before I learned better.)

I thought 'Button' and 'Rev Road' were two of the worst movies of the year, but when I meet people who disagree, I don't try to convince them that they're wrong; I like to ask "Why?" because I want them to convince me that I'm wrong, because I *want* to like movies. (It's just so frustrating when they're as poorly written as those two.)

comment #19

LuckyWilbury says ...

Have the people here who are attacking Lim actually read his article?

It's a thoughtful piece, not a gratuitous slapdown of Slumdog. He's doing what film critics are supposed to do.

And no, I'm not a pal of Lim's. I don't know him.

comment #20

JHR says ...

SLUMDOG is a great movie, worthy of the Oscar and all the accolades, but the hipster crowd hates it. This so-called backlash is small and weak compared to recent year rave outs over other "feel good" films like JUNO and LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE...

comment #21

LeroyBrown says ...

Gordon27: Manohla Dargis loved Inland Empire. So Dennis Lim wasn't the only one.

comment #22

Colin says ...

Gordon,

I could see where Ben Button was poorly written, but where did you see fault in the script fot Revolutionary Road? DiCaprio and Winslet delivered Oscar worthy performances and that couldn't have been done without solid writing.

comment #23

Gordon27 says ...

Leroy - I'm sure there were a handful, but it tells you where he's coming from as a critic to know that he's reacting against the small popular movie that most people love, and reacting in favor of a small movie that most people found difficult to sit through. (Hey, if he can make assumptions about Boyle's intentions, I can make assumptions about his!)

Colin - I will answer your question, but, again, I'm not trying to hijack this thread into a rant about all the things wrong with 'Rev. Road'. So I will limit it to a direct response to you:

"but where did you see fault in the script fot Revolutionary Road"

I thought that every single line of dialogue in the movie felt over-written, like a first year playwright, and not a single one of them rang true to my ears (including Shannon's, he just made them work). I thought that the movie took what should be subtext (and, from what I gather, was subtext in the novel, and was certainly subtext in Mendes's previous film 'American Beauty') and made it blatantly obvious by having characters openly discuss things that nobody would ever talk about out loud in that way. I thought the points it made about suburban living were trite, obvious, and dated cliches (not "dated" because the movie is about the '50's; "dated" because we've been hearing these same cliches *since* the '50's). I thought that they took cliched, obvious actions and shuffled them around so that they would make even less sense from a character's emotional point of view, and that stands in for "depth". And just to make sure we know the movie is serious, nothing in it is funny or entertaining to watch except for Shannon; that's just a pet peeve of mine, when movies mistake being solemn and serious for being an important movie. (I was pleasantly surprised by 'Doubt' having a sense of humor; of all the movies this year, I expected that one to be totally self-important and serious.)

"DiCaprio and Winslet delivered Oscar worthy performances"

Well, I don't agree on that either. I thought Dicaprio was the most miscast he's been in a movie since 'Gangs of New York'. He seemed really mannered and Obviously Acting, mainly because he never really seemed comfortable with the really over-written script. (One thing that I thought the movie needed was for some of those arguments to be more improvisational and less formally scripted, but that's just a guess.) Winslet was better; once in a while, she'd do something believable.

comment #24

Gordon27 says ...

"It's a thoughtful piece, not a gratuitous slapdown of Slumdog."

It's thoughtful to the extent that he decided on his conclusion and then thought out different things to "prove" it, but I don't find it thoughtful when a critic makes assumptions about a movie / director, and then makes conclusions based on those assumptions, and then acts as if those conclusions are proven facts without acknowledging that their foundation is his own assumptions and interpretations. When critics allow their own subjective opinion to become objective fact in their reviews, it rarely makes for a thoughtful and compelling read... unless I already agree with them.

comment #25

Colin says ...

"Well, I don't agree on that either. I thought Dicaprio was the most miscast he's been in a movie since 'Gangs of New York'. He seemed really mannered and Obviously Acting, mainly because he never really seemed comfortable with the really over-written script.Winslet was better; once in a while, she'd do something believable."

I just don't believe that. DiCaprio was at his best since The Departed and he was actually Frank Wheeler. It wasn't like his other roles and thats what made it great. Nobody could question Winslet's acting in that film.

comment #26

Gordon27 says ...

Re: Rev Road / follow-up to what I just said, with a big SPOILER in this post...

...

...

One afterthought - in the novel, the way it's written (I did read that part, just not the rest), April's final action is *very* ambiguous, and potentially suicidal. She even leaves him a note! That's an example of the sort of ambiguity I would've liked from the movie. But, by showing her looking out the window, and her reaction to realizing she's bleeding, it certainly seemed to me that she was absolutely surprised that she might now be dying. I understand taking ambiguity out of a novel and making things more concrete, but that's an example of the bad job I thought they did on it. I have a feeling I'd like the book a lot more than the movie, which felt, in a word, phony.

comment #27

Gordon27 says ...

"DiCaprio was at his best since The Departed"

'The Departed' is the worst performance he gave between 'Gangs of New York' and this movie, so that's not really saying much.

comment #28

Gordon27 says ...

"Nobody could question Winslet's acting in that film. "

You mean, besides the Academy?

comment #29

Colin says ...

Ambiguity implies she didn't know she had potentially killed herself. You got that backwards.

comment #30

Gordon27 says ...

[I should say, I don't mean to knock his performance in 'The Departed', where he's good enough, but he was better in 'Catch Me If You Can', 'Blood Diamond', and especially 'The Aviator'.]

comment #31

Colin says ...

The Academy also thought Chicago was the best film of 2001. The Reader was certainly more risque, but not nearly as good.

If you thought The Departed was bad, I give up.

comment #32

Gordon27 says ...

"Ambiguity implies she didn't know she had potentially killed herself. "

No, you're thinking of certainty. Ambiguity is leaving it up in the air whether she did or not. Now, I'm sure somebody will say the movie did that, but it did not do it for me. When I later flipped through the book, the passage in the book dealing with the same material was significantly more ambiguous, to my eye.

comment #33

Colin says ...

Leaving a suicide note is not ambiguous, its certain, she going to kill herself.

comment #34

Gordon27 says ...

"If you thought The Departed was bad, I give up. "

Luckily, I didn't say 'The Departed' was bad. It was fine. It wouldn't ordinarily deserve Best Picture, but that year, it probably did.

"The Academy also thought Chicago was the best film of 2001."

Ah, but, see, I don't put any stock in their opinion. You seem really insecure about your own opinion, so you have to really argue out with somebody who disagrees with you, that's why you said "Nobody could possibly find fault with Winslet's performance." My point was simply, the Academy was presented with her performance, and they apparently found fault with it, because she (much like Dicaprio, the script, and Mendes) got no nomination for it.

comment #35

/3rtfu11 says ...

I have no want to see it. I have to catch Milk and Revolutionary Road in the theaters.

comment #36

Gordon27 says ...

First of all, you should remember to add "REVOLUTIONARY ROAD SPOILERS" to your post -- this thread is NOT about Rev Road, so your choice to spoil a movie you love is baffling to me.

"Leaving a suicide note is not ambiguous, its certain, she going to kill herself."

Colin - if you haven't read the book, you should probably refrain from offering an opinion on it, because you're making it obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. She does not leave a suicide note, nor did I say she did. But she does leave him a note, a note which makes her actions ambiguous.

I want to read the book, because the note itself was more powerful and emotional than anything in the movie, so I assume the rest of the book is pretty good too.

comment #37

Colin says ...

Well we're going to agree to disagree. And I'm not uncertain with my view of the film in the long run this Road will be recognized as the best film of this year.

comment #38

byanyother says ...

The article makes plenty of good points. But it neglects to mention the thing about Slumdog that is making it so successful: it manages to tell a story of the kind we haven't seen since Frank Capra. It's old, not new. And yeah, if it had been an Indian director it would have been twice as long and not gotten any recognition at all. That is all true. It doesn't change the fact that it's a good movie. It just is.

comment #39

Gordon27 says ...

"And I'm not uncertain with my view of the film in the long run this Road will be recognized as the best film of this year."

I hate to say this, because it doesn't reflect my opinion of the movie in question, but I honestly think that 'Dark Knight' is the only movie that came out this year that might be remembered in the long run. I think 'Slumdog' won't feel as strong in ten years, 'Rev Road' will be a forever cult movie just like it's a forever cult book, and 'Benjamin Button' will be completely forgotten by next summer.

comment #40

Colin says ...

I think 'Slumdog' won't feel as strong in ten years"

Slumdog Millionaire certainly won't be as viewable when India is a world-power in a few years.

comment #41

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Leroy - I'm sure there were a handful, but it tells you where he's coming from as a critic to know that he's reacting against the small popular movie that most people love, and reacting in favor of a small movie that most people found difficult to sit through. (Hey, if he can make assumptions about Boyle's intentions, I can make assumptions about his!)"

You certainly can, but that doesn't make them correct.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inland_empire/

70% with an average rating of 7/10. I'll even go so far as to grant you the reviews were "mixed," after all it is a David Lynch film, so that almost goes without saying. But Burr, Edelstein, Wilmington, Rosenbaum, Hoberman, Ebert, et al. were all pretty high on it so to say "most people found it difficult to sit through," is really not a statement based in fact.

comment #42

MindlessObamaton says ...

Does that mean all the cabbies will be white?

comment #43

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Suddenly I am worried about the future of Dunkin' Donuts...

Hey don't blame me, Mindless started it!

comment #44

Gordon27 says ...

Kane - Fair enough. As I believe I previously indicated to you, I don't take much stock in critics; I was going by the people I know, many of whom worship David Lynch. I only know one person who gave that movie even a grudgingly positive review, and he's a guy who seeks out... I guess "geek show" would be the best way to describe the movies he likes.

I confess, I'm surprised about Ebert, though. I was under the impression he just didn't like David Lynch movies.

comment #45

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Understandable, Gordon...RE is really all over the map with David Lynch. I guess you could say that's fair because Lynch himself is quite inconsistent, but 2 stars for The Elephant Man is pretty hard to comprehend. That is one of his most (only?) accessible, streamlined, narrative films!

comment #46

fattyhadaparty says ...

Gordon27,

Your dissection of everything wrong with REVOLUTIONARY ROAD is the most accurate and articulate that I've read up to this point...which is unfortunate, because I really fell in love with the trailer that ran during the season finale of MAD MEN.

Upon further reflection, it seems to me that the marketing folks who decided to run that trailer during MAD MEN didn't understand who their audience was. Both the movie and the TV show deal with similar subjects, but MAD MEN has the luxury of telling its stories over the course of thirteen hour-long episodes. Characters can act and speak obliquely. There's room for some irony. But by the end of the season, even though most characters never speak or act as directly as they do in ROAD, you pretty much know exactly where they're coming from.

I think another problem with REVOLUTIONARY ROAD is the amount of time that has passed since it was written. If it had been adapted within five years of its publication, the impact of a filmed version would have been as profound as, say, VIRGINIA WOOLF. But so many other properties have mined material from the book (including Mendes' own AMERICAN BEAUTY) that a literal translation just doesn't resonate.

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is as good as any of Danny Boyle's best work. But for some reason, when the Academy decides to honor that work, it's now beneath contempt. Unbelievable.

BENJAMIN BUTTON was one of the year's ten best, even though it's a beat-for-beat remake of FORREST GUMP. But I'll take a beautiful, contemplative, elegant, mature version of FORREST GUMP over the original any day.

The point that I'm trying to make is that most of the 2008 nominees were solid, unremarkable films. Big deal. You're not going to get a classic for the ages every year. But that's no reason to shit all over a lot of quality work. Some of the people that nurse these grudges against certain frontrunners come off like Michael Scott hating his Toby Flenderson on THE OFFICE. Why does Michael hate Toby so much? Because everyone needs to hate someone.

P.S. My favorite film this year was IN BRUGES, but it only got nominated for screenplay. Using the hater's logic, I'll finish all my subsequent posts with "FUCK THE DARK KNIGHT!!"

comment #47

Gordon27 says ...

fatty - I don't watch 'Mad Men' (though, of course, I *should*); was it the Nick Drake add? That was the one that got me really interested.

"I think another problem with REVOLUTIONARY ROAD is the amount of time that has passed since it was written."

This paragraph is very well put.

"SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is as good as any of Danny Boyle's best work."

I think I lean towards 'Millions', but I'd have to watch it again. It's at least a toss-up, for me.

"BENJAMIN BUTTON was one of the year's ten best"

Stay away from my dissection of everything that's wrong with that movie! To destroy all my credibility, I will say that I prefer 'Forrest Gump', if only because the movie is often actually funny. (But, when I re-watched 'Gump' recently, having now come to know 'The Jerk' quite well, I was shocked at how much the two had in common. Seriously. I know people make that joke about 'Button' because he was born a poor black child and all, but you can write a single paragraph which would cover most of the plot points of both 'The Jerk' and 'Gump'.)

"My favorite film this year was IN BRUGES"

Fortunately, my favorite was 'Slumdog', but my second favorite was 'Burn After Reading'. How they managed to ignore that movie for screenplay and supporting actor is beyond me. So FUCK IN BRUGES!

comment #48

Ryansi51 says ...

Gordon, you talk too much.

comment #49

LeroyBrown says ...

Amen, Ryansi51, although I'm not sure Gordon is the only one.

I'll be succinct--The Dark Knight sucks; The Reader sucks; Slumdog Milllionaire doesn't exactly suck but it sure is overrated; Benjamin Button is probably underrated by some but overrated by more; Revolutionary Road may not be perfect but is certainly underrated; Milk deserves all the accolades it's getting. And the best films of the year are to be found in the Foreign Language (Waltz with Bashir, The Class) and Documentary (Man on Wire) categories.

comment #50

plastiqueelephant says ...

A view from the ground:

I'm in Bombay right now, caught SM in a packed cinema over the weekend. First, Indian audiences did NOT stay away. Had 4th biggest weekend EVER for a Hollywood film. Given the small number of screens (391) and the fact that it is nothing like the films Indians usually whack 200 rupees and a pile of samosas on, it's the equivalent to an Stephen Daldry film beating Titanic and Bond (http://businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=11706).

Second, OF COURSE there was debate. This is a society of strong opinions and with a tradition of arguing India's perception by the world vigorously. Bachaan in the (non right-wing) newspapers got slapped down more than supported, there are 7M slum dwellers and 3M homeless in this city, and many editorials argued that it's been a major failure by him and Bollywood to address their lives rather than the plethora of films with peddle middle/upper class fantasies (three letters in friday's MIDDAY said he'd lost their respect for his snarky blog entry).

Thirdly, the slums ARE vibrant, colorful, dynamic places. Dharavi, where Boyle shot, had a GDP of over US$1B last year and exports their products all over the world. While many horrible things happen all over the city, Bombay is defined by it's optimism and energy. It's a city of dreams like never I've been to before, much more than the London, NY, Philadelphia or Sydney all where I've lived and worked. It's the sort of place where I met a production company of young ambitious twentysomethings in their offices in a slum and they're on production on 2 films with one just picked up by a major and where I met a guy in the chawl next door who works for JP Morgan.

I was energized by SM because on a interior level it captured what it feels like to be here. Boyle shot the film in a way which was immensely impressionistic, and given how intense, dynamic and immense this place, that's a massive accomplishment. Sure, there's a different world where I pay $20 for a drink, everyone speaks English with international accents, wears this season's ready-to-wear, the places are designed like NY and we sleep together like sluts. I love that world too, but it's such a tiny sliver that you start running into the same people in a few weeks of being here. What western film is ever expected to chronicle of every part of a society?

Chicago 48: don't knock it till you try it. This place is intoxicating and addictive. Trust me, this is a very, very, very cool place to live.

comment #51

Marcello says ...

Hey, #6, some of us need the "film-hating cynics who target popular movies" to help us keep our sanity. It's awful lonely out there, hating the likes of Slumdog (and Juno, and whatever) and we take great comfort in reading that SOMEONE ELSE out there experienced the movie the same way we did.

comment #52

K. Bowen says ...

Compare Slumdog to City of God. The latter knows every inch and secret of its slum setting. Slumdog doesn't measure up. IT's a fantasy made up by Englanders.
Add to that the fact that there is zero chemistry between Patel and Pinto, and a few defiiciencies, and it doesn't work.

comment #53

Colin says ...

Gordon,

I'd very much like to add I enjoyed this little conversation. It was spiriting to say in the least.

comment #54

Gordon27 says ...

Colin,

I'm glad you did. I enjoyed myself, and that's what I'm going for, but I'm always glad to hear the other side enjoyed it too.

Ryan,

Agreed! And, also, I don't care. My name is prominent at the top of the post, and surely, even at that length, the effort to scroll past it is not *that* overwhelming.

comment #55

Gordon27 says ...

Marcello,

Was it really that hard to find people who hated 'Juno'? 'Slumdog', sure, I've been surprised there's been as little backlash as there is [I expected comments like Bowen's to come out sooner], but 'Juno' seemed to have a healthy dose of hate, and then a ridiculous level of hate once it got the Oscar nomination.

comment #56

Marcello says ...

Fair enough, Gordon. Juno was too easy. I should've gone with "City of God" or "Children of Men" or "The Lives of Others," but apparently I'm too big a pussy.

comment #57

Gordon27 says ...

If you read insult into my post, I can see why you're too thin-skinned to own up to not liking 'City of God'.

But I remember not liking 'Children of Men', and you're right, that was a lonely time, with a lot of, "Well, the cinematography was amazing, but..." conversations.

comment #58

eoguy says ...

I read the piece and I still think this Slumdog backlash is overblown simply to boost the content on entertainment websites (has anything else really happened lately except media layoffs?).

The entire piece is structured around a moment in the film where the child proclaims that the American tourists are experiencing the "real India." What the writer neglects to mention is that the line is followed by the Americans showing the "real America." The moment is meant to elicit a laugh because it makes the Americans look ignorant. In fact, the story is peppered with ignorant tourists who rely on the slumkids for information, and are completely oblivious to "the real India" or any India, in fact.

I'm still struggling to understand the beef that the writer has with the movie. He spends the entire piece criticising the "realism" of the film, and then concludes

"It's hard to fault Slumdog for what it is not and never tries to be. But what it is—a simulation of "the real India," which it hasn't bothered to populate with real people—is dissonant to the point of incoherence."

I miss his point on "real people." There's actual "real" footage in here from the city, including a shot where a citizen is telling them to shut off the camera, proclaiming "no permit." Does that make it real India? What makes it real India? Using real slum kids? Oh wait, they did that too. Getting a real Indian director to shoot this movie? Oh wait, maybe then it would've been an entirely different film, which is fine but still not Slumdog.

Every fictional film is a simulation of something. Accept it and lets get to some real film analysis.

comment #59

Marcello says ...

I read no insult. How am I thin-skinned? I was honestly calling myself a pussy...

comment #60

Chicago48 says ...

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

Seems the parents now want more money and are claiming exploitation of the children. Seems to me Boyle and the producers did all they could for the children -- not the parents. This is really rotten. And it might derail the chances of winning the award. Something like this always comes up at the last minute doesn't it? Remember the Hurricane and a Beautiful Mind?

comment #61

Marcello says ...

"Did all they could for the children," Chicago? I love the "three times the annual salary for an adult 'in the neighborhood,'" line! Isn't the whole point that these people make next to nothing?

The interesting thing about this to me is that the raw deal these kids got probably isn't driven by greed (obviously they'd be willing to dole out huge sums, if just to avoid the bad press), but by a complete lack of consideration for the harsh reality of these people's lives. A lack of consideration that is reflected in every scene of the movie.