Life of Pi (Lee, 2012)

[VSW]

I'm not exactly making a point. Like I said, I'm just saying that the scenes you criticized (coming to terms with Richard Parker) are exactly like that in the novel. I'm not saying that'll make it better for you. Just wanted to know if you had read it. That's all.

[McTeague]

I'm not exactly making a point. Like I said, I'm just saying that the scenes you criticized (coming to terms with Richard Parker) are exactly like that in the novel. I'm not saying that'll make it better for you. Just wanted to know if you had read it. That's all.

Well, the pacing of a novel is not the same as the pacing of a film. Peter Jackson also crammed in 20 minutes all the doubts Frodo and Sam have regarding their mission in the third LOTR and what in the novel came off as normal doubts of two men in a journey about the journey itself over the course of a months-long mission, it came off in the film as two schizos having three moments of selfdoubt per hour. I think Lee and his screenwriter should have condensed each moment of Pi coming to terms with the tiger in one or two cinematic scenes. That, supposing it works in the book, which I cannot tell.

[Eduardo Zuckerberg]

I thought this was just okay. I mean it's commendable in a way since I never thought this story would be successfully adapted to screen and in a way it does succeed. It's well made and the visuals are definitely eye candy but I think there was some disconnect here with the execution. I was expecting something more poetic from Lee but at times this just came off as hokey.

[makemeameteor]

I took this as a “follie”, like the ones Hollywood (and other film industries) used to make since the 20’s and well into the 50’s. Think, The Thief of Baghdad (both the Walsh and the Powell versions), The Wizard of Oz, Reinhardt’s and Dieterle’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, Von Baky’s “Munchhaussen”… A fantasy that’s mainly a visual delirium for the audience’s pleasure, a massage, pure candy to their eyes and imaginations. I think even the color scheme references Powell’s “The Thief of Baghdad”.

I think this is spot on, and "The Thief of Baghdad" was something I kept thinking of while watching this. The color scheme is similar and the direction here is so focused on visual storytelling and overwhelming the senses. In that sense, I think this is a massive success. I'm a little bit more positive on the rest of the film than you, but I agree that spelling out every bit of the "twist" at the end is pretty lame. The framing narrative in general didn't work for me, despite a pretty good performance by Khan. A better actor than Rafe Spall would have probably helped, too.

Despite that, I really, really enjoyed this. Left me with a lot to think about and a deep appreciation of the craftsmanship that went into the making of this.

[Vincent Blanchett]

I'm surprised by how much of a box office success this is. Over $450 million worldwide?! That's an amazing number for a film like that.

[shooter_mcgavin]

I'm not exactly making a point. Like I said, I'm just saying that the scenes you criticized (coming to terms with Richard Parker) are exactly like that in the novel. I'm not saying that'll make it better for you. Just wanted to know if you had read it. That's all.

Fair enough my biggest complaints of most people is who say that I shouldn't I judge the movie because I haven't read the book. Of course that argument total BS most of the time.

[LangeFanForever]

Best film of the year.

[Ciro]

I liked this more than I thought I would, even though I definitely agree with McTiger that the script needed to be tighter and the bookends should have been less didascalic.

I was fairly entertained though, and even though the book probably intends it to be more spiritual than I like (I'm only assuming, I've never read it), the central theme appealed to me. I'm an adamant atheist and I've been since my very early teens, but I've always found religion a fascinating concept, both because of its status of archaic storytelling and because of the way it affects people and has affected history, so I can definitely appreciate how the story uses a beautiful fairytale with animals as a metaphor of the power of religion on the human mind, even on the mind of someone who's detached from it. I want to believe that the story - and the movie - wants this message to be at least partially, uhm, secular (for the lack of a better word) if not even cynical because, as an atheist who has actually studied religion, I left the movie fully convinced that the concept of God(s) is something that even atheists have to live with and are influenced by, but I am certainly not even one inch closer to believing in it.

As a cinematic sidenote, it goes without saying that the visuals are magnificent, but can I also add that I found the performance from the kid very powerful. It complimented the creatures well and he managed to capture both the physicality and the whimsical undertones of the character. Acting always takes a backseat in this kind of films, but I was very moved by his performance and honestly I would easily give him an Oscar nomination over someone like Naomi Watts as far as physical performances under duress go. Irrfan Khan was also good and moving, but he suffers from the bad writing of his scenes.

[Naruse]

Overall this film overwhelmed me. The adventure at the sea was filmed flawlessly and Ang's direction is impeccable. The opening and closing dragged on a bit but it was ok. Richard Parker leaving without turning back broke my heart. Or did he? Or did he tell the true story or this is something ala to Rashomon?

[MVP of West Hollywood]

A masterpiece IMO and the defining film of 2012 I was looking for. Really can't say enough about how great this is.

First off Ang Lee is amazing. Aside from how damn beautiful the film is, I was really struck by how well crafted, paced, etc. the Pi vs Richard Parker scenes are. This was amazingly directed even without considering anything related to VFX. Oh and Suraj Sharma is AWESOME.

But more than that, this is a fascinating film to think about. One of the reasons I loved the ending is that its meaning is not necessarily tied to religion. I read it more that you make your own meaning out of your experiences and life. In a way this ties into Lee and the filmmaking medium as well. It doesn't matter whether the events in Life of Pi were real... it matters how you interpret it.

Really though I took the whole thing as one huge metaphor for Life. Pi vs Parker, the storms, the raft, the island, fighting with one's self, etc. all represent the journey through life and its tribulations in some way. I mean who hasn't been on their own personal carnivorous island, too attached to the comfort and safety of it to get back to the real world. So many ways to read this though. I think one of the most important scenes in the film is the argument with his father about rationality/science vs the heart. IMO both the boy on the raft and Richard Parker are both Pi, it's just the boy is the rational side (planning, doing whatever it takes to survive) and Richard Parker is his emotional, animalistic heart... and they are on the journey together as friend and foe, as everyone's brain and heart are in their journey

An accomplishment on every level and to me one of the best films of the last few decades

[ewdot2480]

A technical marvel. Wonderful cinematography, production design, sound, visual effects, music, etc etc.

Sharma impressed me.

All that said, I simply wasn't moved as much as I thought I'd be. I understand how it could move many people. But it didn't do it for me. The scenes on the ship and the boat were great. But the bookend segments left me cold.

That said, I recognize the quality of the film and the ambitious nature that Ang Lee handled well. 7.5/10

And if 'Lincoln' doesn't win BP, I'd be fine with this film winning because it impressed me on quite a many levels.

[Broad]

I work at a cinema that's really small and caters for an older crowd and for them this was their first 3D experience and so many people have come out thanking us for putting it on in 3D saying they'd love to do it again, it's really quite sweet.

[Thomas]

I am totally surprised with how much I adored this. Like, I have been highly critical of this project as I do indeed think the novel is unfilmable, and was not comforted when I heard that Lee basically changed the tone altogether, but this worked very, very well. Like, wow? LOL. Obviously this film is deeply flawed when it comes to the script (bookends, ew, and the messy religious aspect which I remember as far tighter in the novel). I still really liked this. Sharma's work was excellent, as was Khan's. AND, finally, this is subdued, which is a majestic turn, LOL, by Lee. There could have been so much drama, but Lee even keeps the climaxes sort of low.

The visuals were not as garish as I had expected, and the tiger was fantastically done. Like, Gollum good.

[Vincent Blanchett]

I am totally surprised with how much I adored this. Like, I have been highly critical of this project as I do indeed think the novel is unfilmable, and was not comforted when I heard that Lee basically changed the tone altogether, but this worked very, very well. Like, wow? LOL. Obviously this film is deeply flawed when it comes to the script (bookends, ew, and the messy religious aspect which I remember as far tighter in the novel). I still really liked this. Sharma's work was excellent, as was Khan's. AND, finally, this is subdued, which is a majestic turn, LOL, by Lee. There could have been so much drama, but Lee even keeps the climaxes sort of low.

The visuals were not as garish as I had expected, and the tiger was fantastically done. Like, Gollum good.

[Habsburg]

I didn't read the novel.

I thought I'd be meh about it, but it hit me like a tonne of bricks. It still haunts me, and I'm still trying to figure out my strong reaction.
For sure (only haven't seen Amour) one of the three films I'd like to see win BP (along with ZDT and Lincoln.)

[Vincent Blanchett]

I didn't read the novel.

I thought I'd be meh about it, but it hit me like a tonne of bricks. It still haunts me, and I'm still trying to figure out my strong reaction.
For sure (only haven't seen Amour) one of the three films I'd like to see win BP (along with ZDT and Lincoln.)

Habs, I know I can count on your exquisite taste to love this!

[Spielberg_Fan]

Seems like a lot of people having the same reaction as me. Went in not expecting much, and loving it. I basically just saw it to have seen all Best Pic noms, but ended up really loving it. The trailer sold it way short.

[just me]

It has beautiful moments and the tiger scenes are great, but as an atheist I found all the God talk really anticlimatic and kind of lame.

[affy18]

It has beautiful moments and the tiger scenes are great, but as an atheist I found all the God talk really anticlimatic and kind of lame.

This is...odd.

Anyway, I kinda loved this. I feel it is a very important and relevant film, especially in our day and age when, as evidenced by the post above mine, theological discourse is at a low (many of the religious adhering to fundamentalism and the skeptics to scientism). Is it as profound as say, The Tree of Life? No, but I think it very successfully explores the many diverse facets of religious faith: mystery, doubt, suffering, peace, uncertainty, gratitude, love and the struggle between the brain and the heart. And I think that this film contains some of the most beautiful, stunning filmmaking of the year here. The shipwreck sequence was breathtaking and the dream sequence is simply overwhelming. I also think that while the film sacrifices some depth by sometimes coming close to religious syncretism (I'm not sure if the book does this, too, as I haven't read it but really want to), it seems the more generous and all-encompassing for it. The bookend manages to be somehow very anticlimatic as it brings all the exciting, moving (the storm sequence before reaching the island accomplishes this without ever becoming maudlin) and quasi-mystical build-up to a grinding halt; I'm sure Lee could've come up with a much better device to tell the second story (and without being so spoonfed) and I'm not sure the meta aspect works in the film as it probably did in the book, but most of this is still very, very successful. The CGI work on Richard Parker outdoes that of Gollum, in my book.

A beautiful, must-see film, though.

[McTeague]

Hm. Interesting reaction from you, Affy. I think this could have had depth, but the bookends, by spelling it, literalize everything so much that what should have been a meditation becomes a message in a greeting card or in a fortune cookie.