I urgently need a film review, about 2000 words, with the following requirements.

I watched Slumdog Millionaire, which swept many Oscars, and marveled at the contradictions hidden in the film. The film tells the story of a pair of brothers and a girl growing up in a slum in India. Among the three orphans, my brother joined the underworld, and the girl used to be a dancer and a vase. My little brother wanted to win back the beautiful woman through TV quiz, but he became a millionaire. The whole movie is based on his brother Jamal's flashback memories of being tortured by the police.

At first glance, you will be amazed at the artistic potential of this film. The rich raw materials and life quality have brought great impact to the audience. Fast-moving shots and clips, with dazzling colors and rhythms, quickly show various life scenes of India from the bottom to the richest social class in the eyes of a growing child. The film covers almost all social contradictions in India, even the darkest side: racial conflicts, class contradictions, urbanization, triads, child abuse, extorting confessions by torture and so on. The first13 of the film almost makes people see a breathless beauty, tragedy and unique sense of humor, which reminds the audience in the third world of endless reality and many similar masterpieces.

However, after reading the first half, the taste is wrong. Uneven pen and ink and illogical plot swept away the tragic feeling of the film and replaced it with shallow feelings and optimism at the TV drama level. Every shot and every dialogue has become more and more cliché, and the main line of love running through the whole play has become more and more empty, which obviously has a feeling of "acting". The hero's inner hope for life has become a lucky show watched by the public; The pure feelings between the hero and heroine, which could have been quoted but not sent, have turned into Hollywood dialogues such as Kiss Me. However, my brother's suicide, which lacks logical support, is lost in the happy song and dance at the end of the film, which makes people wonder if they are watching the same movie.

What is even more surprising is the change of film director danny boyle. Did the director who once directed Trainspotting, an alternative classic, dare to face the glory and despair of life, really change his attitude towards life so quickly? Not to mention whether the plot structure of quiz and memory crossing lacks change. Does the idea of extreme kitsch, self-paralysis and commercialization in the second half of the film also come from the director's heart? Can it be said that young artists of this generation who think independently in Britain, like many contemporary intellectuals in China, are opportunistic and go with the flow after middle age?

I consulted many mainstream British and American film reviews, and compared with Indian media, I found more. In the British and American film reviews, the praise for the film's photo editing and musical achievements is basically the same. The difference is that some people, such as roger ebert of the Chicago Sun, are kind. They greatly appreciated the film from the perspective of the genre significance of the Indian theme itself, saying that its grand prize is in sight; Critics such as Anthony Lane of The New Yorker will accuse Chen Qi of lacking originality in plot and depth in emotion, and insinuate that even Dickens, who is famous for his amorous feelings, dare not write such a sentence as "Let's run away … make a living by love" for future generations. The most gratifying thing is that as soon as the comment on Timeout was published, some netizens posted: "The film reveals such a painful living situation in the third world, and we are actually discussing whether it is enough entertainment. Where is our conscience? " This sentence is probably the one that touches my heart the most. As a third-world audience, it is impossible not to ask this question: Is this movie true? Has it achieved its political nature?

Looking up the Indian media, I saw a big debate. A Hindu group publicly boycotted the film online, saying that it was against social reality to portray Hindus as terrorists. (Indeed, this film, like many films made by "outsiders", takes an extremely simplified approach to complex social contradictions. Realistic films often compete here. ) and more debate is whether this film should win an Oscar and whether it represents India. Although the film was not created by Indians, it was regarded as its own by Indians because of its Indian theme and the use of Indian actors, musicians and recording engineers. So the focus of many Indian media, including personal blogs, is: Does this film reflect too many dark sides of India? Has it brought shame to India? Maybe many Indian movies were romantic before to cover up social reality? In this regard, amitabh bachchan, the Indian movie star mentioned in the film, publicly stated: If you win the Oscar, it will be great, this is a reward for the behind-the-scenes filmmakers; If you can't get it, so much the better, because Indian films should have their own standards and don't have to gasp in admiration-this group of words is very interesting, because what Indians seem to pay attention to has nothing to do with whether the film itself is profound enough, but more to pay attention to the honor and national significance that the film has won. Is this a common feature of Third World literary criticism? Amitabh bachchan's words to the Indian media are very enlightening. He said: "Indian films have always been at the forefront and will always be the best. Oscar is a school of its own. " "Indian movies have always stood first, standing first, and it is the best. Oscar has its own place." Look at our neighbor India and think like this. What about ourselves? Imagine the fate of Slumdog Millionaire if it was filmed in China.