[gamblor956]

We must have watched a very different movie...

He wasn't lucky. In fact the point of the movie was that the totality of his crappy life experiences before the trivia game ultimately led to him making it big. Essentially, it was a metaphor for karma.

(Spoiler: he almost died several times, his mom and brother died, his friend was sexually abused and he only narrowly escaped similar fates by running away, and he was working as an entry level food cart guy at the present day of the movie. He was beaten by the cops after his initial success at the show. What part of this do you consider lucky? )

[BeetleB]

> What part of this do you consider lucky?

The part where the questions just happened to align with his misfortunes. And not even in a meaningful way.

This definitely isn't a movie about someone who made it big by struggling hard. He struggled for sure, but the fortune came not as a byproduct of his efforts, but by being lucky. I mean sure, luck is a factor in everyone's success. In his case, it wasn't merely a factor. It was almost all luck.

[gamblor956]

The questions align chronologically with his misfortunes, essentially providing a roadmap of the major events that determined the course of his life.

Yes, they're lucky. It's a game show. A large part of trivia game shows is a matter of luck with respect to the questions asked.

But the point of the movie was that his luck on the game show was good karma for the decisions he made at the major points of his life. (Contrast with his brother.)

[BeetleB]

> But the point of the movie was that his luck on the game show was good karma for the decisions he made at the major points of his life. (Contrast with his brother.)

Sure, but perhaps very unsatisfying to a Western audience where one wants stronger connections between decisions and consequences.

Consider "It's a Wonderful Life": Although the struggles and misfortunes were not that great, it's also a movie where the protagonist consciously made decisions that led to a poor life, and in the end benefited significantly because of those decisions (and not just materially). The connection between his decisions and the outcome is much stronger.

Still, that was only a small part of why I didn't like the movie much - it merely added insult to a greater injury - that of not developing the various arcs that appeared. Imagine watching Forrest Gump where each of his life adventures was significantly reduced. The story would still be the same, but a lot less satisfying.

[gamblor956]

Slmudog Millionaire was 91% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, grossed $378 million, was nominated for 8 Oscars and won Best Picture, won 7 of the 11 BAFTA Awards for which it was nominated including Best Picture, and launched the careers of both of its stars.

Humbly, I suggest that "western audiences" enjoyed the movie a great deal and had no problems with it and that the issues you are having are your own and stem from your inability to understand the thematic issues of the movie rather than a failure of the movie itself.

Interesting that you cite Forrest Gump as your example, since your problems with Slumdog are the same problems that I have with Forrest Gump: it jumps so quickly through Forrest's life that it fails to meaningfully explore the significance of any of the individual moments of his life other than his connection to Bubba and Sarge.

[UIUC_06]

I'm mostly staying out of this, but I can't resist this one:

Please don't ever use a Rotten Tomatoes score as "proving" anything.

People are entitled to their opinions, and Rotten Tomatoes is just an average of a bunch of nobodies who happened to get a "critic" gig at some media outlet. OP didn't like the movie, while I did (and you did).

The substantive arguments about western audiences and Danny Boyle are fine, too. Bring 'em on. But don't use external awards as "proof" of anything.