PDA

View Full Version : Life of Pi (Ang Lee)



Watashi
11-22-2012, 04:52 AM
IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454876/)

http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/life-of-pi-poster.jpg

Watashi
11-22-2012, 04:53 AM
Just great. I forgot to add a poll.

Watashi
11-22-2012, 05:03 AM
Thank you Mod Gods (however you still can't see who voted for what).

Anyway, I loved this movie. Mainly because I'm biased because I love the book (it was my favorite book in high school). The film doesn't deviate from the book at all, so if you dislike the book, you'll dislike the film (ending and all).

Me? I don't mind the didactic final minutes because I can appreciate it as a pure spiritual enlightenment rather than the literal "you will be believe in God" message that a lot of people will take away.

However the stuff before those final scenes are sublime. Some of the best CGI I've ever seen. Richard Parker is a thing to behold.

Irish
11-22-2012, 05:35 AM
I've been reading a lot of reviews on this. Reactions seem to be mixed. Quite a few pound on it for the framing device & the ending, others seem in love with the whole thing from start to finish.

@Watashi Does the framing device exist in the movie? Or did that also come from the book?

Watashi
11-22-2012, 05:42 AM
I've been reading a lot of reviews on this. Reactions seem to be mixed. Quite a few pound on it for the framing device & the ending, others seem in love with the whole thing from start to finish.

@Watashi Does the framing device exist in the movie? Or did that also come from the book?
It's in the book. It's very faithful.

Irish
11-22-2012, 05:49 AM
It's in the book. It's very faithful.
Huh! Cool, thanks. Been wondering about that since I watched the What the Flick review on the movie. Seemed like a curious choice to make.

Morris Schæffer
11-22-2012, 10:53 AM
Ebert was enraptured by the 3D.

Fezzik
11-22-2012, 12:04 PM
Ebert was enraptured by the 3D.

As was I. I went to the 3D showing because I missed the regular 2D one and it was the only one I could fit into my night.

I am so glad I did. It's the first 3D film I've ever seen where I felt that the effects added to the film - this is HOW it should be used: to heighten the art and mood of the film.

The flying fish sequence alone was worth it for the effects.

And Wats is right about the CGI - there were a couple of times where it was a bit clunky, but for the most part, I had trouble telling where CGI ended and where real animals began.

Just an absolutely gorgeous film that, to me, is about the strength of faith in general than any particular religion.

chrisnu
11-22-2012, 02:15 PM
Thank you Mod Gods (however you still can't see who voted for what).

Well, I bungled that up. It can't be changed, either. Is that enough to start a new thread?

TGM
11-22-2012, 05:05 PM
Well, I bungled that up. It can't be changed, either. Is that enough to start a new thread?

Admins can fix it, so if Raiders or Ezee (he is an admin now, right?) get on it, we won't need a new thread.

Mal
11-25-2012, 12:28 AM
This is film where I admire the production and the fact that Lee pulled this off more than I enjoyed the actual story. Though it has something that similar survival film don't have - it never pandered to the audience in a way that left me sour, with how grand the survival is against the odds and how sad the entire event is for the character. I can only see it growing on me more, since was never boring and always had my full attention.

Derek
11-25-2012, 02:07 AM
It's in the book. It's very faithful.

Except that the writer isn't in the book...

It's all told to the Japanese men looking into why the ship sank.

Watashi
11-25-2012, 04:24 AM
Except that the writer isn't in the book...

It's all told to the Japanese men looking into why the ship sank.
Yes, but the whole "choose what you want to believe is true" part is in there. I don't think it's that significant who it's told to.

Derek
11-25-2012, 04:33 AM
Yes, but the whole "choose what you want to believe is true" part is in there. I don't think it's that significant who it's told to.

Right, but you said that the film's framing device was in the book and it was faithful. It's not. I don't think it's a major change, but it does replace impassive observers with someone who is inspired and captivated by Pi's stories.

chrisnu
11-26-2012, 12:39 AM
Me? I don't mind the didactic final minutes because I can appreciate it as a pure spiritual enlightenment rather than the literal "you will be believe in God" message that a lot of people will take away.
I didn't take it that way it all. I thought it provided an entirely non-supernatural explanation for telling stories about God, or which involve God. I was very surprised. It also provided an explanation for Pi's actions during the film in which he invokes God which, from my perspective, seemed incredulous.

Watashi
11-26-2012, 12:58 AM
Joseph Khan tweeted that Life of Pi is a religious movie for atheists and I would agree with that.

chrisnu
11-26-2012, 01:06 AM
Joseph Khan tweeted that Life of Pi is a religious movie for atheists and I would agree with that.
Yes, absolutely. It also makes me wonder if the book's author is a fan of Joseph Campbell.

Dukefrukem
11-26-2012, 06:20 PM
I came in here to ask if the 3D mattered. My question was answered before I could ask. Seeing this later in the week.

EyesWideOpen
11-26-2012, 10:24 PM
Yes, absolutely. It also makes me wonder if the book's author is a fan of Joseph Campbell.

The book's author has said his book will make you believe in God.

plain
11-26-2012, 10:53 PM
Dazzling 3D aside, it's really bad, plays like Cast Away for atheists. I don't think I've checked out of a movie quicker than this all year, awful.

Watashi
11-27-2012, 12:30 AM
Dazzling 3D aside, it's really bad, plays like Cast Away for atheists. I don't think I've checked out of a movie quicker than this all year, awful.
Who are you?

Edit: Like from RT, etc.

transmogrifier
11-27-2012, 03:28 AM
Dazzling 3D aside, it's really bad, plays like Cast Away for atheists. I don't think I've checked out of a movie quicker than this all year, awful.

Cast Away was for the religious folk?

dreamdead
11-27-2012, 11:32 AM
Dazzling 3D aside, it's really bad, plays like Cast Away for atheists. I don't think I've checked out of a movie quicker than this all year, awful.

Those rocking a Hong avatar receive rep.

Meanwhile, is a film with any spiritual longing immediately rejected by atheists today? I haven't read the book, so I don't know how Martel constructs these sentiments, but the critical put-downs on this make me wonder if even films like Tarkovsky's would be napalmed on release now. Certainly Malick's To the Wonder, which seems to openly consider faith, has received similar treatment from critics.

plain
11-27-2012, 01:32 PM
It's just a clumsy and simple representation of spiritualism, and that ending... marvelously bad.

Watashi
11-27-2012, 03:10 PM
It's just a clumsy and simple representation of spiritualism, and that ending... marvelously bad.
You never answered my question.

plain
11-27-2012, 03:37 PM
same username on RT, where I haven't posted in months probably.

TGM
11-27-2012, 11:02 PM
So Raiders isn't responding to my PM's, so we might need to make a new thread after all. :/

Rowland
11-28-2012, 03:26 AM
Anybody else see this with obnoxious audience members? I had one old couple who seemed to be forcing themselves to guffaw throughout the entire film, like they were watching The Naked fucking Gun and were worried they'd be judged if they didn't actively express their amusement with every moment that could be construed as even remotely humorous, and worse, I had a dude who laughed with obvious contempt at every scene that featured serious and even tragic consideration of religion or spirituality, like the smuggest internet atheist troll you can imagine.

TGM
12-10-2012, 08:13 PM
Can we get this poll made public, please?

Ezee E
12-14-2012, 02:09 AM
Wow. I didn't read the book and absolutely loved this. Certainly the most eyecandy I could hope for.

I knew I was in for a treat the minute we got to see Richard Parker. His opening with Pi didn't even make me think about the CGI until I wrote this. The CGI may be a bit obvious as the ship sinks, and moments with the zebra, but that's a small complaint. Everything else is handled so well. The movement of the zebra, hyena, and orangutan are handled so well, that you can overlook the problems.

Ang Lee filmed this with the intention of using the 3D. He does a masterful job with it. He joins the ranks James Cameron and Martin Scorsese as great users of it. Funny how these three don't really throw it in your face, but instead use it for the environment. Most will comment on the flying fish scene, but I found it most useful for the conflict between Pi and Richard. The use of distance shows that 3D can be used in a subtle way here.

As someone who didn't know the book, I was quite surprised at the storytelling decisions for a PG movie. Who'd have thought this would have such animalistic violence? It's also never handled over the top though. I was also surprised that the tiger remained a tiger. You still remain attached to it, but it's never a "Disney" tiger at any time. I'm sure that's portrayed in the book, but certainly something worthy of note that Ang Lee never succumbed to sentiment in the movie for the tiger's personality.

Lots can be made about the very end of the movie. Both in terms of religion, and the story itself. I haven't quite digested the movie enough to comment fully on this, as it deserves a post of its own.

Even so, this is one of my favorites for the year. I love watashi's observation about this and The Grey both being about survival, yet completely different approaches at the same time.

Henry Gale
12-14-2012, 02:43 AM
I guess I never said anything about this, but E's thoughts are basically mine to a tee.

Also, since I haven't heard anyone mention it, I thought it was funny how Lee actually used the 3D trailer trick of falsely matting the flying fish scene to have them jump over and under the frame to further extend the third dimension. It distracted me at first because the film suddenly went from 1:85 to 2:35 for seemingly no reason, but once I realized what was happening I thought it was a cool little experiment for a 3D film to attempt properly rather than leaving it as a cheap way to visualize the idea of 3D in 2D advertisements.

Ezee E
12-14-2012, 04:44 AM
A few hours later, and some of the images are still blowing my mind. They are quite portrait like.

-The approaching Richard Price in the zoo.
-Pi in the ocean as he views the sinking ship
-Mirror reflections on the ocean (simply amazing)
-Pi standing on the raft with Price in the background
-Pi in the trees on the island, observing meerkat activity at night with the observing lake.

Kiusagi
12-18-2012, 05:22 PM
I realize the whole spiritual aspect was about Pi's personal feelings, rather than an attempt to sway the audience, but it still kinda perplexes me. Sure, God was looking out for him and that's why he survived, but wouldn't it also be because of God that he was in that situation in the first place? I know he was probably a better person after the journey, but what about his family and all the other people on the boat? Why don't their lives matter? And was all that really worth being left alone for so long?

I know that might sound ignorant and like something a raging atheist would say, but I'm not one at all. I'm neither for nor against religion, in fact I was raised to believe in God. It's just something I've never been able to wrap my head around, even with all the time I spent in church.

Anyway, that doesn't mean I was negative on the movie. I rather liked it actually. One of the very few times I really enjoyed 3D.

EyesWideOpen
12-21-2012, 12:05 AM
I wanted to like this I really did but besides it being pretty it's too full of spiritual gobbleygook for me to embrace it.

Rowland
12-21-2012, 01:18 AM
I wanted to like this I really did but besides it being pretty it's too full of spiritual gobbleygook for me to embrace it.I have to say I'm a bit mystified by responses like this. As a secular naturalist, I found the film refreshingly free of gobbledygook. I agree with Wats and Joseph Kahn that this is a religious movie even an atheist can embrace, given that its approach to spirituality is far thornier than its accolades would lead one to anticipate.

Watashi
12-21-2012, 01:48 AM
I have to say I'm a bit mystified by responses like this. As a secular naturalist, I found the film refreshingly free of gobbledygook. I agree with Wats and Joseph Kahn that this is a religious movie even an atheist can embrace, given that its approach to spirituality is far thornier than its accolades would lead you to anticipate.
Seriously, if you think about it, this is not a pro-religious movie at all. The film/book is showing why religious people choose to believe in what they do. It's not promoting it.

Spinal
12-22-2012, 11:45 PM
Mild yay. Superb direction by Lee. Impressive special effects. I can't really say that I got a whole lot out of the narrative. I'm not really crazy about an ending in which symbols are given literal definition.

transmogrifier
01-03-2013, 09:16 AM
Mild yay. Superb direction by Lee. Impressive special effects. I can't really say that I got a whole lot out of the narrative. I'm not really crazy about an ending in which symbols are given literal definition.


That was an atrocious decision. I could only shake my head - it's the "A diversion!" of 2012.

All up, it was okay. Nice to look at, fluid direction, a nice little allegory about religion - but it's kind of a dutiful march towards the central thesis, rather than an organic narrative that sweeps you along. The whole author framing device is an annoyance, there to make sure there is an audience surrogate there to hold our hands through the parts where we have to think. The film would have been a lot more powerful if it had just had the Japanese investigators, play up their suspicions of his fantastical story, and then end with the kicker of a last line in the official report, truly showing how a desire for a good story can take root.

64/100

Dukefrukem
01-23-2013, 11:23 AM
In my top 10 for 2012.

Ivan Drago
01-24-2013, 05:27 AM
This was fucking incredible. For once, someone used 3D the right way.

[ETM]
01-24-2013, 08:44 AM
I didn't know they were showing whole scenes instead of the trailer. I saw the entire flying fish scene in front of The Hobbit the other day.

Morris Schæffer
01-30-2013, 10:55 AM
Answer me this. The father attaches a live goat to a small fence for his boy to see. The tiger approaches from the other side, but seconds later, we see the tiger scurry away dragging the entire goat with it. How does that work? Good movie though. I think the emotional apex for me was near the end, when the boy desperately wants the tiger to look back, but the fierce beast doesn't and dissappears into the foliage. The present-day framing sequences are the worst part.

Kurosawa Fan
02-05-2013, 03:17 AM
I'm with Spinal and trans. The decision to frame it through the writer was a poor decision and impacted the film because of the literal definition of those symbols. Really terrible move. Still give the film as a whole a yay. Underrated performance by Suraj Sharma, who I can only assume was acting to a green screen and a man in a green leotard for most of the film. And as has been noted, Lee directed the hell out of the material.

DavidSeven
02-07-2013, 09:07 PM
Part of me wants to say this is one of the best directed things I've ever seen. It's just an incredibly vivid blend of art direction, camera work, editing and special effects. I hate 3D, but this film gave me no choice but to appreciate it. As mentioned, Lee even gets a great green screen performance out of his lead. Could he realistically have done any more with this material?

Unfortunately, the other part of me still gets very little out of individual survival stories. The visuals and early land-based narrative grabbed me early, but my interest just continued to wane once the film went to sea. The ending left me unaffected. In all, it was much better than Boyle's 127 Hours, but it still couldn't burst through my ceiling of enjoyment for these kind of movies.

Fezzik
02-08-2013, 05:09 AM
Part of me wants to say this is one of the best directed things I've ever seen. It's just an incredibly vivid blend of art direction, camera work, editing and special effects. I hate 3D, but this film gave me no choice but to appreciate it. As mentioned, Lee even gets a great green screen performance out of his lead. Could he realistically have done any more with this material?


I'm with ya. Based on the nominees, I'd like to see a split between director and picture. Lee for this, and...well, I'd like Zero Dark Thirty to take it, but without Bigelow being nominated, I don't see it. Lincoln, maybe?

Qrazy
02-11-2013, 05:44 AM
Some nice visuals here and there but the film is needlessly bloated. This story would work much better if it were more minimalistic in it's approach.

Framing device with the writer was crap and should have been cut. Also I didn't like the island sequence in the book and I still don't like it here. In my opinion cut both of these things and you have a much better book and film. Heck even cut a lot of the stuff before they load the animals onto the boat. Maybe flesh out the relationship between Richard and Pi even more before they finally hit land instead, make Pi go crazy so that he begins speaking for or at least thinking he understands Richard so when they finally separate it's that much more devastating to him. Also I would keep the other boat animals alive a little bit longer giving them more defined personalities.

Dukefrukem
02-27-2013, 12:30 PM
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18fvw09hf3r4qjpg/xlarge.jpg

Lazlo
02-27-2013, 12:33 PM
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18fvw09hf3r4qjpg/xlarge.jpg

And the Oscar for Best Boom Operator goes to...

Skitch
04-06-2013, 12:22 AM
Kinda bewildered that anyone could give this a thumbs down. Visuals alone push this to above average. One of my favorite scenes was around the dinner table with the father promoting reason. Lazy writing 101 states that the father should be angry hate-all-religion-man, but thankfully they didn't do that. That scenario is so tired. That scene was a breath of fresh air.

Its not without flaw, but an easy thumbs up.

Yxklyx
04-12-2013, 01:33 AM
I loved this but I can understand the complaints regarding the framing device and how the other story is told at the end. It's not perfect by any means but the good greatly outweighs the bad for me.

Pop Trash
06-28-2013, 11:53 AM
Full disclosure: I only managed to catch the first half of this at a free outdoor screening (which is kind of like seeing a movie on a plane) w/o any 3D but...this seemed very milquetoasty/middlebrow to me. I'm guessing this might be a family film/book for parents who have theologically questioning kids? I dunno. I might have liked it when I was a kid and reading the Tao Te Ching and Children's Bible and wondering "What Does Anything Mean? Basically."

I think I prefer Joe vs. the Volcano's rather eccentric take on this type of story.

I also miss Ang Lee: director of The Ice Storm. Now that was a great book adaptation.

Grouchy
06-29-2013, 05:28 PM
I watched this yesterday and enjoyed it a lot. Visually, it's one of the most impressive films of recent years. Watching it in 3D must've been a treat. And the story's great. I can see how it would work very well as a novel and the strings of the adaptation were easy to spot, but it was awesome all the same.

Pop Trash, I would really save my judgement until after I've seen more than just a couple of scenes.