millions Tagged Articles at Cinematical

So we've already torn the Motion Picture Association of America asunder for not displaying enough discipline with select film ratings, but what about the times that the MPAA maybe overdid it a bit with their judgment calls?

Earlier this week, I watched Danny Boyle's Millions for the first time in a good while, and I'd noticed that it was only rated PG for "thematic elements, language, some peril and mild sensuality" after an appeal to the ratings board. It's a fitting rating for a film worthy of an audience of all ages, but it made me wonder what the similarly whimsical Son of Rambow did to merit a PG-13 for "some violence and reckless behavior". I suppose the argument could be made that the behavior in Rambow lends itself more to imitation, but I know that my theoretical children (they have their mother's eyes) wouldn't be watching one and not the other.

Later that day, I saw Ron Howard's Frost/Nixon, which gets an R for "some language". Now, I know that the MPAA tends to let adult-skewing PG-13 fare get away with an extra f-bomb or two (ex: About a Boy or the particular exception that is Gunner Palace), but by my count, F/N has a single -- albeit loud -- usage of Samuel L. Jackson's favorite expletive, and then nothing else that wouldn't earn an R. Isn't this just Once all over again? Are our nation's teens really going to stumble into this film and walk out worse off for it? (Robert Altman admitted on his Gosford Park commentary track that he intentionally swung an R for similar reasons.)

First, the obligatory Slumdog Millionaire endorsement. I saw it in Telluride, for which I am now grateful, but at the time I cursed the fates. Why? Because I couldn't buy another ticket and go see it again then and there. It opens tomorrow, November 12th, in a bunch of cities, and will trickle on out from there. It's rousing, and wonderful, and I can pretty much guarantee you'll love it.

The feel-frickin'-awesome movie of the year was directed by Danny Boyle, whose Millions hinted at his capacity for big-hearted fairy tales, but who is known for darker material. His biggest hit until a couple of weeks from now is the 2003 zombie horror flick 28 Days Later. He gave up the reins of the sequel, 28 Weeks Later, to talented Spaniard Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (whose Intacto was unjustly ignored six years previous), who wound up upstaging him with what was -- to my mind -- a vastly superior film.

The latest had been that up-and-coming horror director Paul Andrew Williams would be stepping behind the camera for the upcoming 28 Months Later. But now Boyle himself has thrown a wrench into that plan. Though he refused to discuss his idea for the third film, he told a table full of journalists that he'd like to return and direct it himself. "I'd certainly like to... I feel the idea is quite a strong idea, and it could well involve directing it. Yeah, absolutely."

We'll see what happens after Slumdog earns Boyle his first Oscar nods. I actually have faith that he won't abandon genre films -- he's so dang good at them (though I think his best showcase in that respect is actually Sunshine). I still prefer Fresnadillo's take on the 28 franchise, but on the other hand Danny Boyle is my new hero. Mixed feelings.

Almost all of the films directed by Danny Boyle deal with some kind of get rich scheme. Sometimes, as in Shallow Grave and Millions, the money comes by accident. Other times, like in The Beach and A Life Less Ordinary, they involve failed attempts to illegally make some dough. It's been awhile since I've seen it, so I really can't remember how the robbery in Trainspotting goes, but it's there even if the main deal of that movie is getting high, not rich. As for 28 Days Later, and I'm guessing the upcoming Sunshine, there is no wealth to be had, but Boyle's next film, Slum Dog Millionaire, which has been scripted by The Full Monty writer Simon Beaufoy, will again be dealing with a large sum of money.

As we told you a few weeks ago, Boyle is already in pre-production on Slum Dog, which we only knew involves a true story about a boy from the slums of Mumbai who wins big on India's version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. But instead of the boy being really smart, as we had thought, it now turns out the film's protagonist is illiterate and not well-educated. We learn this from Time Out's movie blog, which got a good deal of the plot synopsis out of Boyle for a recent podcast. The director says the film will show how the boy luckily knew all the answers because they all related to experiences in his life. His win was apparently a big shock to the show's producers, who suspected the boy of cheating. The best part of the story, though, is that the boy didn't mean to do so well; he only wanted to go on television in the hopes it would help him find his love, a girl who he'd lost connection with. Sounds like another fairy tale perfectly suited for Boyle.