About these ads

Dan the Man's Movie Reviews

All my aimless thoughts, ideas, and ramblings, all packed into one site!

Life of Pi (2012)


Think of it as Cast Away, with instead of Wilson, there’s a shit-load of CGI.

This is the story an Indian boy named Pi Patel (Suraj Sharma) from Pondicherry who survives 227 days after a shipwreck, while stranded on a boat in the Pacific Ocean with a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. However, like any 227-day trip with a Bengal tiger, it doesn’t go so smoothly.

An adaptation of Yann Martel’s novel was definitely one that needed to wait-out it’s time. It was called unfilmable for many reasons, but one of the main ones being the fact that the story mainly-revolves around a boy, stuck in a boat with a tiger. The only way you could have ever shot this movie with an actual-tiger still in-play, would be to have it utterly and completely stoned, and I think instead of eating the actor, the tiger would just go for the nearest Cheetos bag. So, obviously filming it conventionally was already-out before anybody could put it in, but what about the art and magic that is cinema? Can all of the money in the world ($10 million to be exact) make a CGI-tiger, look as real as the ones you see eating zebras alive on the Discovery Channel?

The answer to that is with an upstanding yes! Director Ang Lee once again shows that he is able to find beauty in any story he feels the need to tell, and he finds it here in the best-way with some of the most-realistic, beautiful special-effects I have seen in quite some time. With well-established directors like Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese both trying their aims at 3-D and doing a relatively nice-job in their efforts, it is so great to see a director that has never messed with this technology before, and just really give-it-his-all and give us a mesmerizing picture from start-to-finish.

And when I mean “start-to-finish”, I mean exactly that. Everything not only looks as realistic as you can get in terms of the animals involved, but the constant-colors that just pop-out of each and every scene really kept me looking the whole-time. You think by watching the trailer that you saw all you needed to see in terms of how gorgeous and stunning this film looks, but trust me, you haven’t. Certain things that you didn’t even think were possible to do with CGI-animation, let alone 3D, is done here and will take you by-storm by just how much effort and energy Lee puts into this new-found love of telling a story. I honestly cannot tell you enough: go see this movie in 3D and realize that maybe it’s the directors like Lee, Scorsese, and Spielberg who should be throwing out 3D movies instead of chumps like Timur Bekmambetov and Scott Speer. In case you couldn’t tell, Speer directed Step Up Revolution (trust me, I have no idea why I saw it either) and Timur directed the OTHER Honest Abe movie, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Keep on giving 3D to legendary directors that know how to work this kind of stuff, and keep it away from guys who literally are only doing it to “up” their box-office sales. And 9 times out of 10, it doesn’t even help.

But in case you haven’t been able to notice already, I’ve only been mentioning the 3D and visuals of this movie and that’s mainly because the story kind of loses itself, as well as this movie. Watching the trailers, seeing the previews on TV, and even looking at that poster up-above, will already have you know that this is about a boy and a tiger lost at-sea, but little do you know that that whole-factor doesn’t play, until about 30 minutes in and we have to deal with an introduction to this kid’s life that is unexpected and a bit annoying. I think my problem with it was that it constantly went back-and-forth between this person’s child-hood, to the present-day of when he’s talking with this reporter and after awhile, it made me wonder just when the hell the damn ship was going to sink and we could get some straight-up, survival-guide facts at-play.

After that glorious and beautiful-looking crash (gives the infamous one in Flight a run for it’s moolah) ends up happening, the story then kick-starts into what I wanted and for the most-part, it works. I really liked where Lee went with this story, how he told it in a way that didn’t seem to bore the hell out of everybody watching because of it just being a kid and a tiger treading along hopelessly at-sea, and most of all, how he didn’t find himself going back-and-forth between the past and present like he was doing in the beginning. Just let a story tell itself and you’ll be perfectly fine and that’s where the real charm and beauty in Lee’s direction plays-out. Sadly, it doesn’t last forever and the story just finds it’s way back into screwing everything up, once-again.

The problem this movie runs into by the end, without giving anything away, is that it’s ending is a bit too long, too explanatory, and mainly, not needed at all. I don’t want to get into the logistics of this ending and what happens, but it’s the same exact one they took from the book that I apparently heard about, and even though staying close to the source material is something that more directors should take from Lee, they should also take away the fact that sometimes things that play-out well in a book, don’t necessarily play-out very well on-screen. It’s novel-adapting 101: make sure the audience picks-up, what you’re throwing down, just as long as you don’t lose the audience of the book’s near-and-dear faithfuls, but also don’t lose the movie-crowd, as well. I won’t say that the ending and honor to the original source-material lost me, but I will say that it definitely killed any hopes I had of feeling emotionally-connected to this story at all. Sorry Lee, you had me crying over two gay cowboys but when it comes to a boy and a tiger, ehhh, not so much.

New-comer Suraj Sharma does a really great-job with his lead-role as Piscine Patel, and what’s more notable about this performance is how it’s his first-role ever, he had no prior acting-experience, and he was practically all by himself throughout the whole movie, in terms of acting and communicating with others. Yes, in the movie, there is a tiger there that looks just about as real as you can get, but you have to remember, that it is not a real tiger and that this Sharma kid is practically talking to the thin-air or an imaginary object. It’s sort of like how Mark Wahlberg talked to a tennis ball in-place of Ted, in well, Ted, and how he made it so damn realistic, and that’s pretty much what this Sharma kid does. He’s a believable kid that has us believe in him right from the start, he’s a kid that definitely has us feel like he can pull it out in the end, and he’s also one that seems to have a chip on his shoulder, where he knows that it’s probably not right to try and hang-out, kick-back, and try and smoke a couple of doobies with this tiger, because this thing does not play nice.

Even though it is fairly a one-man show, the movie does have some nice supporting roles, as well. Irrfan Khan is very, very good as the older Pi and shows how he has changed into a stronger, but more enthused man about life and by the end, once we learn that there is more to this character, more to him, and more to what’s on-display here, then that’s when he gets good even if the story sort of loses him in the shuffle. Rafe Spall plays the writer that interviews Pi about this miraculous story and it’s a really, really blank role that would have really benefited well if it was originally-given to Tobey Maguire. Yeah, he would have been way too familiar for this role and pretty much take us out of the story, but at least it would have been a lot more entertaining watching Peter Parker get all awkward with some guy about how he saw some of the sickest shit out there at-sea, rather than watching the guy who once-played a fake-Shakespeare. And besides, if you’re not going to put Maguire in the movie because he’s too recognizable, then don’t put Gérard Depardieu in there, either. Everybody knows who that fat slob from French is, and I highly doubt it’s going to bother-us anymore.

Consensus: With outstanding visuals that are probably some of the most realistic I have ever seen put onto screen, as well as some of the beautiful as well, Life of Pi is definitely a spectacle that’s worth venturing out to see in 3D, however, be ready for the visuals to eventually play second-fiddle to a story that isn’t all that strong to begin-with, gets a bit better, and then fizzles out with no emotional-connection whatsoever. Still, deserves to be seen.

8/10=Matinee!!

About these ads

26 responses to “Life of Pi (2012)

  1. Asrap November 21, 2012 at 5:32 am

    From the trailer, the visuals seem impeccable!! But if plays second fiddle to the story, then I definitely in!!

  2. Austin 'BishopReview' November 21, 2012 at 6:36 am

    I might just wait to rent this, only because there are a ton of great movies coming out soon and my wallet is begging me to quit going to the theater. It’s pretty adamant actually.

  3. Terry Malloy's Pigeon Coop November 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

    The trailers and stuff didn’t do much for me, it seemed very much a case of style over substance. However, I kind of get the feeling it’ll lose the appeal it does have if not seen at the cinema.

  4. bakedmoviereviews November 21, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    I absolutely loved the book but I was uncertain whether or not I should watch this…after reading this review I might give it a go, at least to see the visuals and art direction.

  5. Hypersonic55 November 21, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    Crackin review mate. I’ve heard a lot about this film long before I saw the trailers in the cinema recently. From the trailers it seems like a live-action film with a load of CGI that has heart. Which is surprising. I am gonna watch it just to see if it’s as good as critics make it out to be.

  6. meeradarjiyr1 November 21, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    I saw the trailer at the cinema’s and I wished I was watching that film! It seems remarkable. I really want to watch it! Great review

  7. momto3feistykids November 21, 2012 at 10:50 pm

    The first line of your review is hilarious. :-) I’ll probably rent/stream this at some point, especially since it’s visually beautiful and seems reasonably family friendly. (It can be hard to find movies my 8 y/o and I both enjoy.) However, I suspect I’d prefer the novel. Excellent review, Dan!

    http://eclecticbooksandmovies.blogspot.com

  8. Alex Thomas November 22, 2012 at 11:55 pm

    I’m so excited for this one, especially the visuals. Hate having to wait until 2013 for it in Australia. Great review.

    Also, the amount of reviews you do on the site is phenomenal! Keep up the good work :)

  9. Fogs' Movie Reviews November 24, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Youre right, the CGI was pretty flawless. Very impressive.

    I had problems with the ending, too. And it did undermine my ability to emotionally connect. Those are two very different stories that are being presented to us. And well, its hard to feel the same way about both.

    I still thought it was a great flick though.

  10. Mark Hobin November 25, 2012 at 8:48 am

    I thought the story was a philosophical rumination on life, death and perseverance. On a superficial level it’s about a boy and tiger, but look further and it’s so much deeper than that. I absolutely adored it. One of the best films about an animal since The Black Stallion. It was magical.

  11. colincarman November 26, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    What do you think it all meant, metaphorically, though?
    http://colincarman.com/

  12. chanz November 30, 2012 at 3:48 am

    The visuals are undeniably very good, so amazing and stunning.

    I agree with you with the “no emotional-connections” cuz people in the cinema I was in still laughing at the scene that should not be funny.

  13. Debbie December 4, 2012 at 8:10 am

    I agree with you completely. Amazing visuals, but lacking a strong story to support it. Didn’t live up to my expectations in terms of telling a story, but blew my mind in terms of CGI. Ang Lee did the best he could with the tools he was given.

  14. Pingback: Life of Pi Review: A More Realistic Calvin & Hobbes | Rorschach Reviews

  15. Kyle December 9, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Read the book first. It’s a must. True genius in writing and Ang Lee is a true genius in art direction. To get the full story one needs to read the award winning book to get the feel of this story one needs to SEE the film and I can’t wait.

  16. Pingback: LAMBScores: A Psycho Tiger Kills Them Softly | The Large Association of Movie Blogs

  17. Pingback: » Movie Review – Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter Fernby Films

  18. Fred August 20, 2013 at 12:09 pm

    I loved most of the film but I was gobsmacked at the lame ending when Pi asks the faltering believer which story he prefers ( note, not which he believes ) , the tiger story or the more likely cannibalistic version, to which he seems to answer the former, the message being -believe whatever made up story you like if it gives you comfort !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,149 other followers

%d bloggers like this: