Slumdog Millionaire was critically acclaimed, named in the top ten lists of various newspapers. The much acclaimed title sequence has been honoured by a nomination at the prestigious Rushes Soho Shorts Film Festival in the 'Broadcast Design Award' category in competition with the likes of the Match of the Day Euro titles by Aardman and two projects by Agenda Collective. Boyle and his team, headed by the director of photography, Anthony Dod Mantle, clearly believe that a city like Mumbai, with its shifting skyline and a population of more than fifteen million, is as ripe for storytelling as Dickens's London [ How else could Boyle get away with assembling his cast for a Bollywood dance number, at a railroad station, over the closing credits?
You can either chide the film, at this point, for relinquishing any claim to realism or you can go with the flow—surely the wiser choice. For example, Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian gave the film three out of five stars, stating that "despite the extravagant drama and some demonstrations of the savagery meted out to India's street children , this is a cheerfully undemanding and unreflective film with a vision of India that, if not touristy exactly, is certainly an outsider's view; it depends for its full enjoyment on not being taken too seriously.
The movie unfolds in a start-and-stop way that kills suspense, leans heavily on flashbacks and robs the movie of most of its velocity By then, it's just a little too late. Reactions from India and the Indian diaspora to Slumdog Millionaire Slumdog Millionaire has been a subject of discussion among a variety of people in India and the Indian diaspora.
Some film critics have responded positively to the film. At the same time, others objected to issues such as Jamal's use of British English or the fact that similar films by Indian filmmakers have not received equal recognition. A few notable filmmakers such as Aamir Khan and Priyadarshan have been critical of the film.
Author and critic Salman Rushdie argues that it has "a patently ridiculous conceit. All the bad elements of Mumbai commercial cinema are put together and in a very a slick way. And it underlines and endorses what the West thinks about of us. It is falsehood built upon falsehood. And at every turn is fabricated. At every turn it is built on falsehood. I was ashamed to see it was being appreciated widely in the west Fortunately Indians are turning it down.
Mitu Sengupta and raises substantial doubts about both the realism of the film's portrayal of urban poverty in India and whether the film will assist those arguing for the poor. Rather, Sengupta argues the film's "reductive view" of such slums is likely to reinforce negative attitudes to those who live there. The film is therefore likely to support policies that have tended to further dispossess the slum dwellers in terms of material goods, power and dignity.
The film, it is also suggested, celebrates characters and places that might be seen as symbolic of Western culture and models of development. The film is seen by D. Parthasarathy as reflecting a larger context of global cultural flows, which implicates issues of labour, status, ascription-achievement, and poverty in urban India.