Life of Pi

Two stars are quite a decent result for a film that I didn't enjoy at all. Ang Lee approached the laws of physics his way, relied on CGI and made a film about high moral values, with no chance of appealing to me (a shallow individual). The film is technically distinguished, but its story left me cold. (02/06/2020)

From the moment the devastating storm hits the ship, Ang Lee captivated me with his storytelling and the courage of the human spirit. Suraj Sharma's sincere performance, the curiosity of which creature or object will appear next, and above all, the perfect audiovisuals that keep me awake at night, all made their contributions. All the fish, islands, waves, and most importantly, Richard Parker, along with the flawless soundtrack, convinced me that the rumors of its astonishing form were true. So why not give it the full rating? Because I cannot fully accept the ending. The choice that suddenly appeared before me is actually quite gratifying for the audience. It allows more cynical individuals to distance themselves from the incredible visuals and perhaps give Pi's whole life a higher spiritual dimension. And yet I never wanted to have such doubts. Choosing for yourself how the film actually ended is often a clever trick in screenwriting, but here the film falls a bit short. I would truly prefer to embark on the mesmerizing journey across half the world and do away with the sincere lesson about faith. This voyage never became immortal, but hats off to how the film, where for the most part we see only a man, a tiger, and the sea onscreen, becomes a captivating spectacle that sticks in your mind. (22/02/2013)

When I left the cinema I thought I was probably expecting something deeper and more intense, but then I realised that I was actually expecting something like a beautifully colourful and bitter fairy tale with lots of digital animals, which I actually got. The beginning was kind of slow (maybe it could have been a little shorter), but the boat ride, the shipwreck and the fight for survival were absolutely amazing. Many of the scenes looked magical and were a feast for the eyes, for example the sunset or the night at sea. All the digital animals looked incredibly realistic (the tiger, the meerkats, ...), so kudos to the VFX artists. As for the main character, you have to take into account that this was the actor's debut and therefore you have to forgive him something, but in the end there wasn't much. In short, a colourful adventure of one boy that gives room to some interesting religious digressions. (25/12/2012)

Colours, animals and gods in a pleasant adventure, and a twist that can be considered nice or nasty, depending on your nature. I reckon the book version was sharper and Ang Lee probably blunted the edges, but it doesn’t matter. Great filmmaking that the ending prevents from being a mere naive religious tale. Thumbs up. (06/01/2013)

A raw, uncompromising, unadorned condemnation of faith as a crutch. That is what the book is about. But not here in this illustrative adaptation which waters down the material into a suitable form for family viewing, turning it into an enchanting tale about faith. It’s simply a Persian pussy-cat kitten and not a full-grown Bengal tiger. All of the rawness (and so the chilling power that is the basis of this story) is gone; from the feeding to leaving out the part where he meets the blind sailor. The result of this is that the (stupidly put across) “Disney-like" adapted version of the lesson barely makes sense and provokes the wrong questions. Apart from this “detail", Lee handled this challenging material with flying colors. Especially once they get to the open sea, he excels, not only in terms of visuals. In terms of filmmaking, he is often impossible to beat; headed the best visual effect in cinema history - Richard Parker. Too bad for the nothing prolog and awful ending. P.S.: The dubbing is pure Hell on Earth. It’s the worst I have heard in a long time and the people responsible should be driven into the tiger enclosure at feeding time. On the other hand, the 3D was a pleasant surprise, used here unexpectedly ingeniously and sensibly, not just for effect. (07/12/2012)