Slumdog Millionaire



Downloads:

Download in DivX format ($2.99) Download in iPod format ($1.99) Download in 1080p format ($4.99) Download in 1080p format ($4.99) 

Download Slumdog Millionaire movie

Attention!
Today you can get access to all our movies only for $0.99 per day.
Create free account and make sure that it is true.

Imran Hasnee Security
Anil Kapoor Prem Kumar
Irfan Khan Police Inspector
Dev Patel Jamal Malik
Anand Tiwari Newscaster
Mia Drake Adele
Freida Pinto Latika
Shruti Seth Call Centre teacher

787 Comments »

    Pages: « 158155 154 153 152 151 [150] 149 148 147 146 1451 » Show All

  • Awesome Film

    I thought this movie was absolutely brilliant. It is a typical "Against
    all odds" type of movie but the display of the 3rd world slums in
    Mumbai was simply amazing. I found it to be compelling and thought
    provoking as well as it invoked a certain compassion for the troubles
    face by many of the youth in this country and many alike it.Though it may have been predictable at parts I found that the movie was
    well directed and the cinematography was just excellent. The movie
    wraps up well and answers most of the questions you'll find during the
    movie.A recommended watch.

    Cody-guitarist from Canada - 18 May 2009
  • Krusty presents: The Cheesy and Schmaltzy Show.

    Since it received no less than 8 Oscars, I foresaw that Slumdog would
    not be of my liking, but I was frankly still baffled that the picture
    did not even meet my poorest of expectations, turning out to be just
    another overcheesed melodrama and an altogether incoherent mess of a
    film.With leads totally bereft of any charisma and zero chemistry between
    them, I progressively wondered who exactly I was supposed to root for.
    I think at some point I went for the game show host, since he was
    apparently paying the game money out his own pocket? and was obviously
    the victim of a swindle, much like myself.Come on, people don't instantly become of interest or garner sympathy
    just because they had a rough time. It takes a believable backdrop, a
    solid script and character development to achieve this. This picture
    fails terribly on all these counts and does so rather conspicuously,
    much like a cartoon or a parody. Oh, this was a realistic portrait of a
    typical slum in Bombay? They muse recently painted and vacuumed the
    place then.Heavy handed and utterly contrived situations furthered my annoyance as
    the movie turned into an inconceivable question and answer game where
    queue back sequences, in perfect chronological alignment, conveniently
    allowed the main lead to be able to rush through the game show, never
    showing the proper emotion or physical reaction such a tense situation
    surely would bring. No wonder the comic book villain cops didn't buy
    the lead's explanation that he simply knew all the answers. Our poor
    lead is beaten and tortured as the morally bankrupt cops try to force
    out a confession. But after a few weepy lifetime tales, the cop
    miraculously turns from foe to friend acting like the father one never
    had. Please give us a break.And what was up with these kids being able to speak perfect English all
    of a sudden? Since when is the WWTBAM show broad-casted live? And since
    when do you only need to answer 6 questions in this quiz and what in
    God's name is so glorious or symbolic about being shot to death in a
    bathtub full of money? Why is it that nowadays films with a script and story line that would
    really only be suitable for young children with its simplistic and
    utterly unrealistic plot points, seem so fit to gather so much general
    acclaim from a mature audience? I know people are easy to manipulate
    with these sorts of rags to riches claptrap, but surely this level of
    schmaltz and insultingly lame and predictable story progression would
    open up a few eyes here and there?I guess that the better the movies come, the worse they actually are.

    CineCritic2517 from Netherlands - 18 May 2009
  • The feel-bad movie of the year

    The feel-bad movie of the year "The feel-good movie of the year!"
    promises the quote headlined on the DVD jacket; and that certainly was
    what the movie was marketed as. Remembering previous movies by director
    Danny Boyle–stories about miserable people in dead-end situations–I
    wondered what his idea of a feel-good movie could be.I found out soon enough: a story about even more miserable people in an
    even more definitely dead-end situation, beginning in torture and
    ending in a double murder, with betrayal, abduction, theft, robbery,
    mutilation, and more murders along the way. The movie's claim to
    feel-good status rests on a "happy ending" which takes up perhaps five
    minutes and feels more like an appendix, the story proper having
    concluded as it commenced, miserably. The ending didn't make me feel
    good, and I don't understand how it could inspire such a feeling in
    anyone who was paying attention.How did it make me feel? Confused: because it seemed to follow from
    nothing that had preceded it. The boy and the girl live happily ever
    after, in prosperity and contentment. But, wait, that isn't the ending;
    that's our inference from the ending. The movie doesn't show it, and
    isn't shown in effect doesn't happen. The actual ending is that the boy
    and the girl come together and kiss. Yet even that is–well, what is
    it? It isn't realistic or logical, and couldn't have been intended to
    be taken as such. But neither is it romantic, because the movie lacks
    the layer of sentiment that such an ending would require. It isn't
    fantastical, because the movie lacks this layer, too. And it isn't
    ironic, a deliberate counterpoint to reality. However you read it, it
    makes no sense.This conclusion led me to look back at the story more critically, and I
    found it the same all through. I don't understand what mode it's in.
    It's based on what sounds like the kind of "happy idea" characteristic
    of traditional comedy: a poor boy competes in a TV quiz show and amazes
    everyone by knowing all the answers, because every one is something he
    has discovered during one of the major events in his life. But the
    movie isn't a comedy of any kind, and so I don't know why it should be
    built around this idea. And even supposing it were a comedy, I wouldn't
    know what the idea meant. Again, it isn't a realistic premise; it's not
    likely to occur in life. Is it intended as optimistic, in showing that
    all experience brings knowledge with it? Or darkly comic, in that after
    the horrors the boy has endured, all he has to show for it is a few
    negligible bits of trivia? Or inspirational, in that he turns lifelong
    defeat into victory? One can only guess.The best clue the movie offers is the structure, as far as it can be
    perceived through the director's efforts to fragment it. From it I
    would guess that in the original novel was distanced a step or two from
    reality. The story is laid out in a series of discrete episodes from
    the boy's life, each containing the answer to one of the questions on
    the quiz show. In the movie we hear the question, see the flashback
    relating to it, and then flash-forward again to the boy's answer. This
    seems more strained and artificial than it would in a novel, in which
    it wouldn't be acted out literally.Paradoxically, however, the movie's attempts to disguise the
    repetitiveness of the device only make it seem more intrusive. Had it
    been stuck to, and treated in the same way as a recurring pattern in
    music, it might have given the movie a solid form. As it is, it's
    broken up distractingly. Sometimes we're in the studio as the quiz show
    is going on, sometimes we're in a police station watching it; the
    shifts are so random that often we don't know where or when we are. In
    fact, it isn't until well into the film that we learn the boy isn't
    only replaying his life in memory, he's also telling it to the police.
    Once we know this, we can't be sure whether we're seeing events as he's
    recollecting them, as he's recounting them, or as they originally
    happened. Clarity appears not to have been the director's primary
    objective.What he does seem to have been after is to keep things moving. And he
    does. This is a running, jumping, and not-standing-still film. For
    instance, it contains two street chases that go on far longer than
    needed–if either sequence was needed at all–seemingly just to add
    some action in. The scenes of violence raise the same suspicion, and
    come off seeming sensationalized, however undoubted the reality they
    reflect. Possibly Boyle has a genuine concern for the victims, but his
    hyping of the atrocities they suffer leads one to call it into
    question. So does the fact that the same kinds of bad things happen
    even in his zombie and space movies. And frankly, I felt a lot of it
    was just ego, the director superimposing himself onto the material. In
    places, indeed, he does so literally. In what would have been the
    movie's one enjoyable sequence, a dance number in the Bollywood style,
    he continually pastes credits on top of the dancers, as well as cutting
    away from them every few seconds. He can't keep himself out of it.And so he hashes up the narrative, jumping from one stage of the boy's
    life to the next while paying scant attention to how he got from one to
    the other, and never slowing down to show us what his life is actually
    like. What he feels and thinks–especially in his relations with his
    brother, so critical to the story–the movie doesn't tell, except in
    the most generalized and movielike way.If I'm going to watch a meaningless movie, I'd rather it be a
    feel-better one.

    galensaysyes - 17 May 2009
  • WOW!!! What a waste of 2 hours of my life I will never get back!

    This was the worst movie I've seen in 15 years I have been on this
    planet, and I've seen some terrible movies in my time; such as, The man
    who fell to earth starring David Bowie, and Junior, a terrible 'comedy'
    starring the worst duo in the history of film making (Arnold
    Schwarzenegger and Danny Devito). I recommend to anyone who is
    considering watching a drama based romantic movie; watch Titanic or the
    Notebook, both of which are reputably good movies which are not
    remotely over-rated. So if you are just walking by the video store and
    see this movie, KEEP WALKING! Unless of course you want to endure the
    pain of watching the worst Danny Boyle film you will ever see. This
    film, in my opinion, may be the end of Mr Boyle's career.

    haydenbebbington from United Kingdom - 9 May 2009
  • 'Jai Ho' !!!!!

    Danny Boyle is easily up there with my favourite directors,he seems to
    catch real emotion and beauty in such everyday things, this film is
    beautifully shot and acted, it really is such a beautiful film. I
    really loved the format the idea of the film being set around who wants
    to be millionaire and with all the terrible things that had happened to
    the main characters being the reason they eventually broke free,it is
    so bittersweet at the end, the final scenes are so gripping, Also i
    loved the fact that it was so true to life,the characters, situations,
    settings, all real India! Watch this film - also really loved the
    dancing at the end !! Fab !! 'it rocks' !!!!

    nina_perkins from United Kingdom - 9 May 2009

Pages: « 158155 154 153 152 151 [150] 149 148 147 146 1451 » Show All

Leave your Impressions!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>