Life of Pi (Lee, 2012)

[Rage Colored Glasses]

I saw this with my cousins today in 3D and I really enjoyed it. Visually it was a masterpiece, with each shot topping the last in terms of how it showed the ocean, the island, even the zoo in Pondicherry. The Cinematography win will be richly deserved even against competition as strong as The Master and Skyfall.

I also liked how the script pared down the thread of religion that runs through the book to fit a film while still keeping the essentials. I also liked how there were some humorous moments mixed in here and there (Pi's first attempt to " train" Richard Parker comes to mind) to keep the story from becoming too overbearing.

I thought that Khan and Sharma were very good. Khan especially had a tricky task of pulling of the voiceover narration without it feeling repetitive or redundant, he really infused it with the soulfulness required without being too heavy-handed. Sharma also was very convincing in how he portrayed Pi's growing bond and attachment to the tiger. Another highlight of his was his scene with the Japanese insurance men when he tells the other story to them; I had thought they would cut away and show flashbacks of that, but they instead trusted Sharma to carry it off entirely and he acquitted himself very well.

All in all a great movie experience, and Lee will be right there for my personal Best Director prize.

[lazarus]

Pretty much agree with all of that.

[Timmer]

Man, this is totally "meh" for me.

I thought the first twenty minutes or so dragged horribly, with the attempts to set the scene and establish the character of Pi falling flat. I feel like his prediction about his tale (that it will make his friend believe in God) was simply setting the storytelling bar too high. Because the friend = us, and well the film just isn't that good.

I feel like, while visually the film is astonishing, it is actually too beautiful. The effects were so wondrous that it kept pulling me out of the story and making me consider the expertise of this shot or that effect. In short, it was always obviously a movie. Like, in the same way that The Road was armageddon porn, this is ocean porn, it's too much.

And the cast is alright, but Suraj Sharma is a) not good enough to pull me in to the story and b) given nothing to do but go "ahhh!" and "noooo!" on cue. the subtleties of the rest of his performance fall flat.

And finally, the denouement kills the film, for me. The handling of the alternate story and the whole entire framing device about the random white guy who heard his story was weak weak weak. Who was that guy? Why was he there? His whole presence was useless except as a reason for Pi to tell his story.

I really, really hope this doesn't get any Oscar noms beyond some cinematography type ones...

[TheOppressionRepressesMe]

This was very nice. I thought they handled the source material quite well.

It was really the perfect Thanksgiving family movie for an audience of different ages and tastes. I was surprised by how much my deeply conservative Christian family liked it. I got nervous when the Muslim stuff started. Everyone walked out entertained, and puzzling over the film's philosophy and what the story meant. The animal stuff helped too-- I LOVE animals, and the expressiveness of the different species totally won me over. Especially the beauty of the tiger-- what a SFX masterpiece. Two or three scenes packed an emotional wallop.

Overall a very nice accessible treat. Everyone could recognize and comment on its genuine beauty and compelling story/meaning.

[TheOppressionRepressesMe]

I feel like his prediction about his tale (that it will make his friend believe in God) was simply setting the storytelling bar too high. Because the friend = us, and well the film just isn't that good.

I think it would be very easy for even an atheist to walk out of that movie "believing in God." Didn't Obama say the story was an elegant proof of the existence of God?

In a way, it actually sets the bar quite low. It's not saying, God created the world in seven days or, Jesus rose from the dead. It's saying, I went to a magical island with a tiger or, I floated around by myself for 9 months. We aren't asked to choose which version is real, just which story is the better one. "And so it goes with God." In this context, "believing in God" could mean 100% acceptance of the fantasy as "what really happened" or just a tacit wink that the tale makes for some good literature. Or both, really. The book did a good job at exploring what faith means, and how literally we take its metaphors, and how many different versions of reality spring from its source. I thought the movie nailed those questions, and so was successful in its ambitions of making us "believe."

[erikdean]

I am very mixed on this, but leaning much more to the positive side. The God metaphor and the painfully overdone bookended structure tried my patience. Ironically though, Irrfan Khan's performance is sublime (he always is though). From a technical standpoint it was stunning and a total director's film. I totally agree with TORM about the animals. I never stopped to think they weren't real and it's to that credit that I could suspend analytical thinking and just believe. Richard Parker leaving without turning back was devastating.

[Timmer]

I should add something positive to my earlier review because truly the film isn't all bad at all. Yeah, the animals were done perfectly, it's was stunning, actually. And yeah, admittedly, the last shot of Richard Parker was very moving.

But why does the guy telling two stories and asking the listener to pick one make one believe in God?

[Moviefreak]

This movie didn't do anything for me. It wasn't bad by any means, but it's just not my thing. Parts of it dragged big time, but overall it was watchable, mainly because it was so pretty to look at. I actually thought that the tiger used in the film was real. That it wasn't speaks to the brilliance of these visual effects. I don't see how it loses that Oscar. The cinematography isn't necessarily the kind that I prefer, but for what is was trying to accomplish, it is very strong work. I thought both Sharma and Khan were very good, but neither is awards worthy. Ultimately, for me, this is pretty forgettable outside of the effects.

[lazarus]

I think it would be very easy for even an atheist to walk out of that movie "believing in God." Didn't Obama say the story was an elegant proof of the existence of God?

In a way, it actually sets the bar quite low. It's not saying, God created the world in seven days or, Jesus rose from the dead. It's saying, I went to a magical island with a tiger or, I floated around by myself for 9 months. We aren't asked to choose which version is real, just which story is the better one. "And so it goes with God." In this context, "believing in God" could mean 100% acceptance of the fantasy as "what really happened" or just a tacit wink that the tale makes for some good literature. Or both, really. The book did a good job at exploring what faith means, and how literally we take its metaphors, and how many different versions of reality spring from its source. I thought the movie nailed those questions, and so was successful in its ambitions of making us "believe."

Very well-said.

But why does the guy telling two stories and asking the listener to pick one make one believe in God?

Reading TORM's words above a couple times steered me in the right direction. The writer is asked which story he prefers. He said the one with the animals because the other one is too horrifying and he would prefer to believe the more outlandish one.

The metaphor of Pi's tale likens it to biblical stories: would you prefer that the universe and all of us are here by accident, or would you prefer the story of a loving deity who created all this with intent and purpose?

So he tricks the writer to answering the metaphoric question, in a sense saying he prefers the biblical take on the world. It winds up being a bit of a joke. Pi didn't expect to actually convert the writer, just to open his eyes up to the beauty/positive effect in accepting the miraculous.

I say all this as a militant atheist. It didn't change my belief system, but I thought it beautifully made its case.

I also want to add my astonishment of the tiger SFX. I couldn't believe my eyes. That may be the best example of CGI I've ever seen in a film.

[erikdean]

I'll echo that TORM is spot on in his explanation of how the film uses belief and faith and incorporates into the God metaphor. It's the kind of thing that even an atheist could love lol.

[TheOppressionRepressesMe]

Apparently the tiger stuff was filmed using several different tigers, and then CGI for some of it. Absolutely seamless.

[lazarus]

Yeah there was no way that was from scratch.

[crazyfists3600]

UGH, I saw this this weekend and I have concluded that this is the 'Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close' of this year, NOT Hugo. I was very disappointed, but I'm not sure what I should have been expecting. The film was beautifully shot and had glimpses of decent acting surrounded by a lackluster lead, but the kicker was the emotional vagueness. I mean, the novel reduced me to tears in parts and yet this sugarcoated adaptation lost all of the emotional girth and left us with a rather empty take on a boy's life journey. The visuals were amazing, but the cinematography was overreaching and I found the two added scenes (the whale and the girlfriend) to be pointless and dumb. The use of 3D was very impressive, but this was like Castaway meets Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close meets We Bought a Zoo. It just failed at every attempt to make me feel something it was hellbent on making me feel.

[Timmer]

UGH, I saw this this weekend and I have concluded that this is the 'Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close' of this year, NOT Hugo. I was very disappointed, but I'm not sure what I should have been expecting. The film was beautifully shot and had glimpses of decent acting surrounded by a lackluster lead, but the kicker was the emotional vagueness. I mean, the novel reduced me to tears in parts and yet this sugarcoated adaptation lost all of the emotional girth and left us with a rather empty take on a boy's life journey. The visuals were amazing, but the cinematography was overreaching and I found the two added scenes (the whale and the girlfriend) to be pointless and dumb. The use of 3D was very impressive, but this was like Castaway meets Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close meets We Bought a Zoo. It just failed at every attempt to make me feel something it was hellbent on making me feel.

I fully agree.

[jjj]

Well. The movie encapsulated pretty much everything I felt about the book. Except it was gorgeous and the book's prose was not so much. I think someone who likes the book should be able to like the movie and vice versa, but I did not like the book and all of the criticisms in this thread about the film stem directly from the book. Even the acting criticism to an extent, since the characters are pretty flatly written. That said, I still fully support a Lee directing nomination because he excels at capturing the spirit of an "unadaptable" book into movie form.

[James]

I really liked this. Firstly the film making here is absolutely gorgeous. Ang Lee was the perfect director for this as he is able to fully embrace the technologies available to him and craft the film accordingly. The fantastical colour pallet suited this story well. Between Ang Lee and Martin Scorsese I am starting to appreciate the use of 3D, these directors are using the technology to the advantage of the film and not simply using it as a gimic to fill seats. From a technological stand point I feel that this film like Hugo is an important one as both of the directors are able to craft films that are explorative in how the 3D format can and should be used. Both films are gorgeous. Claudio Miranda and David Gropman take a lot of the technical credit here for their really impressive work. However, Lee is really the star of this film, he created a visual masterpiece where it easily could have been a total disaster. The questions about religion were handled tactfully allowing the film to be accessible to people with varying beliefs.

[City Lights]

I actually really, really liked this. If nothing else, this was a great story brought to the screen. The actors were serviceable, and that's more than OK. Life of Pi wasn't ever going to be a film about performances. It was always going to be about the story and the journey. The visuals were astounding.

I guess I understand the complaints about depth, but I was getting a bit misty when I thought RP was dead...and then again when he left Pi.

[Dr_Dmitri-Yuriev]

This was very nice. I thought they handled the source material quite well.

It was really the perfect Thanksgiving family movie for an audience of different ages and tastes. I was surprised by how much my deeply conservative Christian family liked it. I got nervous when the Muslim stuff started. Everyone walked out entertained, and puzzling over the film's philosophy and what the story meant. The animal stuff helped too-- I LOVE animals, and the expressiveness of the different species totally won me over. Especially the beauty of the tiger-- what a SFX masterpiece. Two or three scenes packed an emotional wallop.

Overall a very nice accessible treat. Everyone could recognize and comment on its genuine beauty and compelling story/meaning.

I couldn't agree more, I loved the film and I'm happy to see it's getting mostly positive notices from members here. The film is beautifully shot and very well acted; Sharma excels in his physically demanding role and Khan gives a touching turn. It has a compelling and important message and I liked how it wasn't presented in an overtly manipulative manner, it let's the viewers ponder and decide for themselves about the proceedings and their philosophical meaning.

[MrJeffery]

This was pretty good. A lot more humor than I expected (my audience seemed to love it). Part of me feels like I've been rooting for Ang Lee to have a great film again so maybe I'm rating this higher than I would normally. Not usually a fan of CGI but the visuals were dazzling and worked well with the fable-like nature of the story. The tiger's expressions were well-done & moving. The film falters a bit in the bookend sections (as films often do)... Rafe Spall was particularly terrible. Otherwise I thought the film worked pretty well... as others have noted it's strengths are in a few performances, its nice score, photography & visual effects.

[crazyfists3600]

Well. The movie encapsulated pretty much everything I felt about the book. Except it was gorgeous and the book's prose was not so much. I think someone who likes the book should be able to like the movie and vice versa, but I did not like the book and all of the criticisms in this thread about the film stem directly from the book. Even the acting criticism to an extent, since the characters are pretty flatly written. That said, I still fully support a Lee directing nomination because he excels at capturing the spirit of an "unadaptable" book into movie form.

I don't agree with this at all. I loved the book, found it inspired and deeply moving and it really etched out its viewpoint without beating us over the head with it. The film was too toned down to make much of an impact and basically told us what to feel without showing us. It was tonally vacant. The scenes in the book that were so moving were stripped in the film. A lot of this is because the book relies a lot on what is not said or even seen to move it forward (the internal conflictions in Pi) but removing that left the film feeling almost devoid of a point. Visually, it was amazing (I hope it wins every Visual Effects award out there) but emotionally it didn't deliver. Pi's journey was trivialized in a way. It never felt as severe as it needed to. I think the push to make this a family film truly hurt the end result. Yes, when Pi explains what really happened I cried, but most of that was because I was recalling the feelings I had when reading the novel. If I had seen the film on its own, without having read the novel, I doubt I would have felt the same pain.