This was the most recent film to come from Academy Award winning director, Ang Lee. The minute I heard he was nominated for Life of Pi I knew he would be adding another gold statue to his shelf-I swear. It's no surprise that Ang Lee has the correct recipe to make a feature so impressive that the Academy practically throws these Oscars at him. In all seriousness however, Ang Lee does have the special ability to achieve exactly the right amount of emotion from his actors.
During this film I never once felt that any emotion or character direction was inappropriate. It is the responsibility of the director to harness his actors talent in front of the camera, to that I say, "Bravo, sir!" It is also due to the fact that the actors used to play Pi at the various ages shown in this film were on top of their craft. Suraj Sharma, who plays young Pi, and Irrfan Khan, who plays older Pi, were both incredibly good in the role. The interesting aspect behind these two actors is that their list of roles prior to Life of Pi is nothing to dote on. Khan has been in more films than Sharma, but seems as though his roles have been part of rather "small" features, not many blockbusters; and Sharma has played one character in a feature, Pi Patel. I have seen some top notched actors stink it up from time to time so the fact that these two men were able to come into this film and knock it out of the park is extremely impressive.
Life of Pi was a complete film from start to finish, every hole was filled and question was answered; the acting and directing was not overshadowed by the incredible plot, adapted from a book. This story revolves around Pi, a young man from India. His family owns and operates a zoo, but due to some financial garbage, the city decides it wants back the park in which their zoo inhabited. So, Pi and his family pack up their belongings, including their animals, and board a Japanese freighter bound for Canada. As is popular in all films utilizing sea crossings, there is a massive storm which pounds the freighter causing the ship to capsize and nearly all the crew and gear aboard sink as the vessel descends to its final resting place in the unforgiving sea. Cue some sharks and some fast-paced sequencing, now we find ourselves on a life boat inhabited by Pi, a Zebra with broken legs, an Orangutan, a Hyena, a Rat and last but not least a Bengal Tiger. Talk about your reunion from hell. Needless to say, this is not the ideal setting for a sea rescue.
The entire rest of the film revolves around Pi struggling for survival in this life boat, bobbing around the Pacific, encountering all sorts of sea life from whales to phosphorescent krill (observe below). As each day passes Pi occupies his time strategically planning on how to keep himself and his "friends" alive.
Pi continuously encounters fantastical happenings throughout his adventure, which includes landing on a human shaped island. Realizing that this island will eventually kill him, he leaves and ultimately hits land in Mexico. He is rescued by some locals and hospitalized. The film ends with Pi telling his story to Japanese officials as he is the only survivor from the lost ship.
One of the coolest plot points was that this film and its perilous journey were not happening currently, but from a narrated memory; we were looking back into the past, but not like Back to the Future. In a present time period a writer is being told about this adventure from a grown-up Pi. The film cuts back-and-forth from present day to the past multiple times allowing for the roller coaster ride to find a smooth spot here and there as we can only watch Pi and the tiger fight so many times.
I have addressed that Life of Pi is a standout film, solid from start to finish: story, acting, directing, etc.; my problem however, and you had to have known this was coming, is the excessive use of CGI. I know, I know, why do I have this issue? Again it's simply because in a film which already has an unbelievable story, the enhancement from CGI makes things less palpable, meaning that it's even less likely for the viewer to follow/connect with your film. Often times in these films I find myself more caught up with trying to discern between what is real and what is fake than fully encompassing the viewing experience and getting lost entirely in the film. It is distracting to try to figure out how these scenes could have been accomplished in real life. To help prove my issue, I have supplied production stills with before and after looks of the film. Enjoy!
Maybe this doesn't mean anything to you, and I can admit that it shouldn't bother me the way it does, but I just cannot help the disgust. I truly feel that CGI is making our films less valuable. Ask yourselves this, "How would this film have been made 40 years ago?" The answer: place the actor in a boat in a lake or the ocean. Maybe the tiger would be real, maybe it would be added later using multiple exposure,
"In photography and cinematography, multiple exposure is a technique in which the camera shutter is opened more than once to expose the film multiple times, usually to different images. The resulting image contains the subsequent image/s superimposed over the original. The technique is sometimes used as an artistic visual effect and can be used to create ghostly images or to add people and objects to a scene that were not originally there. It is frequently used in photographic hoaxes."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_exposure
at least using real scenery and props; what you're seeing is what you get. Think of the film Jaws. Jaws was shot in the ocean, on a real boat, with real sky behind them and real water. Now, of course the shark was an animatronic, but they had no choice once the shark's manager declined the job following unsuccessful contract negotiations. I literally can go all day about CGI and its horribleness, but I shan't, at least for now. Look y'all CGI is for some and not for others.
I understand why film makers "love" CGI. It allows them to make their vision of the film's world into a reality, okay, I will give you that. Some directors have mentioned that they didn't like their pre CGI film because the landscape or special effects didn't look the way in which they envisioned. James Cameron had a complete script for Avatar years before he filmed Titanic, however, he sat on that script for over a decade because he knew that at the moment the script was ready that the CGI he required for his vision was unavailable. He waited for the technology to be up to his standards to film Avatar. I can agree that CGI helps film makers achieve their desired look, I just wish it was used sparingly. Besides, without CGI Lord of the Rings would be no different from Deliverance, well almost; I don't remember any banjos in Lord of the Rings.
Readers, as you expand your mind by reading this material, and as you undoubtedly have read all my other reviews numerous times, I'm sure by now you are either tired of my jawing, and/or are thinking to yourself, "Is Popcorn or Snore ripping this film a new one?" Well to answer your question I say...
Final Words: Large Popcorn.
Even though this film relied too heavily on CGI, I was still impressed with the look of the film and more importantly the story. I highly recommend this to you, world, and know that most of you will agree that this story is very powerful. This film should be shown to the young sparingly, but none-the-less.
Until next time, happy viewing!
Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large
When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping
Life of Pie was a fantastic movie! I would have never of thought it would be a movie I would like. Decided to watch it after reading this review and LOVED it!
ReplyDelete