Life of Pi

bnt

This film adaptation has been mentioned here a few times, but it's now in post-production, due in November, and a trailer is out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZEZ35Fhvuc

Directed by Ang Lee, with cinematography by Claudio Miranda (Benjamin Button, TRON:Legacy), music by Mychael Danna (Little Miss Sunshine, Moneyball), starring Suraj Sharma, with Gérard Depardieu and Tobey Maguire.

(Am I right in thinking this is Ang Lee's first 3D film?)

Mickeroo

They played the trailer for this before TDKR when I saw it. looks visually great in parts but some of the CG looks dodgy enough too. Strikes me as the kind of film that didn't need much CG (though I've not read the book so not sure).

I like all of Ang lee's movies that I've seen so willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

solarith

It was once described as unfilmable, so would be curious to see how it turned out.

Sad Professor

Not familiar with the source material, but visually the trailer reminds me a lot of The Fall.

I really like Ang Lee. Extremely versatile director.

conorhal

Well I loved the book but that trailer makes me trepidations...
It's kind of garish, Pi looks a bit old and way too ripped to me, I don't see a very pivotal Orangutan or a Hyena in the boat (though it's possible that they were just left out of the trailer) and the scenes set in India make me suspicious that Pi's religous awakening has been excised in favour of some dumb romantic sub-plot.
I never considered the book un-filmable, just a book that treads such a fine line between reality and philosophical and religious allegory that any director without a deft touch could easily make a pigs ear of it.
My dream version of the film would have been an animated version from Ari Folman in the style of his truly amazing 'Waltz with Bashir', and to break up the monotony of life on the ocean waves you would have to do a lot of cutting back and forth between Pi's training of his tiger with scenes from the life (and animal husbandry) lesson his father and mentors imparted on him back in Pondicherry before the boat sank.
All in all I'm reserving judgment until I see it. Ang Lee isn't a bad choice for the film, but top of my list would have been Ari Folman or Darren Aronofsky.

Psychedelic

I would recommend people read the book first, it's a good story and it won the Man Booker Prize so it's worth checking out. There are some very interesting interpretations of what the book is about too (spoiler: Don't read unless you've read the book!

supposedly based on a true story where the animals are actually humans

), I wonder will the film go there and also how it will approach the religious side of it, in particular one section of the book about an island.

Mickeroo wrote: »

They played the trailer for this before TDKR when I saw it. looks visually great in parts but some of the CG looks dodgy enough too. Strikes me as the kind of film that didn't need much CG (though I've not read the book so not sure).

I like all of Ang lee's movies that I've seen so willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

They wouldn't be able to do this film without CG, as the main plot of the story is about a kid, a tiger, a hyena and a zebra on a lifeboat.

Sleepy

One of the few books I've ever not bothered finishing. Couldn't see what all the hype was about at all. Can't imagine the film will be any better.

johnny_ultimate

I've been left cold by all of Ang Lee's post Crouching Tiger output, so his name wouldn't sell the project to me. The trailer also looks a little too digitally clean, so to speak: hopefully it will look more cinematic on the big screen, as some of the effects look like they could work really well. Got an unfortunate Lovely Bones vibe from some of the shots...

I haven't read the book, though, and the ideas and settings seem relatively unusual and inventive from that brief preview.

Chancer3001

read the book, thought it was well written.

Also thought a lot of people read in to "hidden/deeper meanings" way too much. Will be very very difficult to create a solid film, but theres huge scope for some epic scenes.

Rabies

Read the book. The first third was average, but then it picked up and I got hooked. Tough book to shoot as a movie.
Agree that it has a very Lovely Bones visual style right now.

eternal

This film or something very similar was made in the 1990s unless I am mistaken which I don't think I am.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

eternal wrote: »

This film or something very similar was made in the 1990s unless I am mistaken which I don't think I am.

Considering the book came out in 2001 it seems unlikely...

eternal

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: »

eternal wrote: »

This film or something very similar was made in the 1990s unless I am mistaken which I don't think I am.

Considering the book came out in 2001 it seems unlikely...

I am thinking of Pi which came out in 1998, apologies.

coolisin

I know i've read the book but cannot remeber any of the actual story.
But remembering thinking how hard it would be too film!
Could be ok, think ill revisit the book first!

Fishooks12

Looks visually stunning anyway. Huge fan of Lee so looking forward to this

JP Liz V1

Visuals in the trailer look stunning not familiar with the book myself either

Funglegunk

I think that trailer looks absolutely gorgeous. I'm not familiar with the plot of the book though (bar the being stuck on a boat with a tiger bit).

DublinWriter

The book was on the whole like swimming through treacle for me, although there were one or two high points. It would be interesting to see how it translates to the big screen.

annascott

Has anyone who read the book seen this film? I want to hear from someone who loved the book as I do. This is definitely my favourite book written this century. I am almost afraid to go as I thought it was unfilmable and don't want to ruin the amazing memories that I have of this incredible story.

nervous_twitch

I saw it the other night; the book is also a favourite of mine. Visually, the film is breathtaking. There are so many beautiful shots and for a supposedly 'unfilmable' narrative, Lee has done a stellar job. He adheres quite faithfully to the book and nothing is really overlooked. The casting is good and Richard Parker is done well - having watched the trailer, I thought it all looked a bit 'clean', a bit CGI or something, but it works fine on screen.

One or two slight criticisms -

It seemed to end really quickly; his landing in Mexico just sort of happens unceremoniously. The film also makes the dual-story less ambiguous than in the book, implying that the tiger version is most likely the fictional one.

Also, strange complaint to have, but there were times when I was somewhat bored, only because I'd read the book and knew exactly what was coming. As I said though, the visuals more than make up for it. Go see it, you won't be disappointed, although for me, it could never have been better than the book.

Sleepy

Does it carry over all the religious nonsense from the book?

I gave up on the book about half way through because of it. One of the very, very few books I've ever not finished but the visuals in the trailer look utterly stunning.

nervous_twitch

Yep, the religious stuff is definitely still there. In fact, I thought it was a bit more heavy-handed here than in the book. At least it's not specifically dogmatic though, as Pi is a Jew/Hindu/Muslim/Christian. But then, the whole story is told to the reporter to make him believe in God, which might grate on the irreligious.

That said, there's a lot of enjoyment to be taken from the story with or without the 'God' aspect.

annascott

Sleepy wrote: »

Does it carry over all the religious nonsense from the book?

I gave up on the book about half way through because of it. One of the very, very few books I've ever not finished but the visuals in the trailer look utterly stunning.

It is really hard to stay interested in the first part of the book, but the second half of it (or maybe two thirds of it?) is like a completely different book. Please go back to it. It is really amazing!

Think of the religious/philosophy stuff as the boring queue for a Theme Park rollercoaster. You soon forget about it once you get to the cool part

Oranage2

Little bit boring aimed mostly at kids, beautifully shot though.

A lmany key elements of the book aren't included really a movie just for kids.

Chancer3001

saw this in 3d tonight.

Wow, stunning, stunning scenes.

AMAZING scenes and direction, story itself is only ok.

The tiger is done brilliantly, CGI is top quality.

Very very enjoyable. I nearly applauded at one scene at the start it was that good!

johnny_ultimate

Saw this tonight, and visually its an absolute triumph. This is how you do CGI right - absolutely top notch effects work, from the tiger to the fantastical dreamscapes (the water reflections particularly were consistently gorgeous). It's a film completely built around digital cinematography, and it shows. Kudos to Lee, his cinematographer and all their collaborators - this is a triumph of art design, SFX and good old fashioned cinematography.

Due to the practicalities of attending with a group, I was reluctantly forced to break my anti-3D vow for the first time in a year. But... and I never thought I'd say this... it actually enhances the look of the film. Several sequences and sets are designed with it in mind. In one scene (the most go for broke in terms of three dimensions), Lee even makes the bold decision to change aspect ratio to 2.35:1 to give a group of leaping fish the empty space necessary to actually exit the frame convincingly. It's an invigoratingly creative use of a what tends to be an appalling aestethic decision. Sets and locations too seem to have been designed with an awareness of depth, while some clever shots effectively utilise the 'layering' effect of 3D that tends to be distracting in lesser hands (even Hugo). It hasn't changed my mind on 3D overall - and there are long stretches of the film where it doesn't really matter - but it is a rare case where it is, due to a few creative flourishes, justified. Trust me, it takes a lot for me to say that.

Storywise, the film is definitely at its strongest when at sea. Some spectacular scenes, starting with the sinking boat. The tiger / Pi setup makes the middle act fly by - its entertaining throughout, culminating in a visually resplendent trip to the

meercat island

. Alas, the prologue and epilogue, if we can call them that, are irritating. All the spiritual mumbo jumbo, delivered with the subtlety of a hammer to the head... It just didn't work, and felt condescending. Luckily its effectively ignored for a good hour or more in the middle (

even if its all revealed to be a religious analogy of sorts

), but it leaves a sour taste in an otherwise engaging story.

One to watch in the cinema, though, where its luxurious sense of wonder and spectacle can be appreciated in all its neon-hued glory.

opr

If ever a film was meant to be seen stoned then this is it. Visual masterpiece.

Opr

Technocentral

I'm a cynical atheist who hates whimsey, "magic realism", CGI (unless its an extension of a street, building,matte effect) and 3D, would I enjoy it?

Chancer3001

go see it and let us know

johnny_ultimate

Technocentral wrote: »

I'm a cynical atheist who hates whimsey, "magic realism", CGI (unless its an extension of a street, building,matte effect) and 3D, would I enjoy it?

Well you can pretty much read my post through similar eyes. As an avowed atheist, the spiritual stuff was undoubtedly worthy of a few eye rolls - its awfully insipid stuff. Nonetheless, the 'bulk' of the film tells a story thats much more engaging. And, as a hardened hater of excessive CGI and 3D, I cannot possibly deny that Ang Lee and co. have worked wonders with the technology. It's a beautifully composed film - heavily digital, yes (although nowhere near the horrid Lovely Bonesitis the trailer suggested), but a rare film that has a keen awareness of the technologies strengths and limitations.

The reviewer in Sight & Sound said it best - when the film is happy to focus on the spectacle and man / tiger dynamics, its wonderous. When it tries to articulate 'bigger' issues, it all rings a bit hollow. It's a question of whether you're willing to forgive the trite philosophy to get to the genuinely dazzling core.

Linvia

I purchased the coldplay music from itunes, however, it turned out that coldplay soundtrack only appeared in the trailer!

SebBerkovich

After enduring the awful Lust Caution, i decided that i wouldn't go near another Ang Lee movie, this doesn't look like it'll have me break that trend.

Linvia

SebBerkovich wrote: »

After enduring the awful Lust Caution, i decided that i wouldn't go near another Ang Lee movie, this doesn't look like it'll have me break that trend.

Lust Caution isn't awful at all. If you totally understood every detail in it, you'd realize it was as the same level as Pulp Fiction. :rolleyes:

ArthurG

Loved the book and loved the film. Not sure why but when books I enjoy are translated to the screen, I find it very emotional. I'm not sure that the 3D added anything to be honest, but overall I thought it was a fantastic spectacle. As for the whole aspect of making you believe in God, well it doesn't do that for me (nor did the book), but it made me want to. I don't consider the message in the story hokey at all, and if anything the impact on screen was more than the book. This from someone who hasn't been to mass in years......

krudler

Just saw it, the only film since Avatar where the 3D has actually improved the viewing of it, it had depth, looked gorgeous and really felt immersive. and the CGI is spectacularly good. That tiger is amazing looking, really shows how effects and 3D can be used properly. Some of the god stuff is fairly wishy washy, and I thought the ending reaffirmed doubt in religion not enforced it. The

"Which story did you prefer" thing, isnt that religion summed up? you choose the one that makes you feel good

o1s1n

Never have I had such a hard time trying to like a film.

The religious mumbo jumbo was nauseating, I felt like I was being preached to.

Both actors in the prologue and epilogue were dire. It was the height of condescending, handholding drivel. If I never see Rafe Spall's stupid face again I'll die happy.

However, that whole middle at sea section was the complete polar opposite. It was spectacular. How they could get that so right and the rest so wrong is beyond me.

Pro tip - if you haven't seen this yet, leave the cinema when

he's lying on the beach and the tiger walks off into the jungle

conorhal

For me Pi was what I refer to as a bit of a 'faberge film', it looks all glittery, georgous and expensive, but open it up and it's empty and utterly pointless. It wasn't helpd of course by the fact that the kid couldn't act and all of the central performances (bar the bloody tiger's) felt weak.

I don't get why people are moaning about the religious element, that's the core of the story (but a pretty wishy washy core in this case), so it's kind of like complaining that the The Song of Bernadette was 'a bit too religious.

krudler

conorhal wrote: »

For me Pi was what I refer to as a bit of a 'faberge film', it looks all glittery, georgous and expensive, but open it up and it's empty and utterly pointless. It wasn't helpd of course by the fact that the kid couldn't act and all of the central performances (bar the bloody tiger's) felt weak.

I don't get why people are moaning about the religious element, that's the core of the story (but a pretty wishy washy core in this case), so it's kind of like complaining that the The Song of Bernadette was 'a bit too religious.

I'd be very surprised if he doesn't get an oscar nod.

johnny_ultimate

conorhal wrote: »

I don't get why people are moaning about the religious element, that's the core of the story (but a pretty wishy washy core in this case), so it's kind of like complaining that the The Song of Bernadette was 'a bit too religious.

There's plenty of spiritually and/or religiously motivated cinema that I really like, even though I don't subscribe to whatever belief system the director does. Terence Malick's output is a good example, or the beautiful Spring Summer Autumn Winter... and Spring. The difference in such examples is that the spiritual / philosophical ponderings are tightly woven into the narrative - enhancing but not distracting from the core story being told. I don't have to agree with some of the themes, but doesn't detract from me getting almost completely bewitched by the whole experience.

And if Life of Pi had have found a more elegant way of articulating its themes, I think this film would have been very excellent indeed. I'd go as far as saying the film has a full hour of greatness. But IMO the film effectively shudders to a halt during its opening and closing segments as it awkwardly verbalises the film's rather shallow and silly ideals - ideals that wouldn't have seemed so ridiculous had they been lingering in the background rather than emphasised through clunky dialogue. The ****ter Narnia stories would be another example of material guilty of this particular crime. The film's greatest crime is it lacks subtlety, with the closing section even retroactively souring that stunning middle hour. o1s1n said it well - it felt like I was being preached to, and the message wasn't in the slightest bit convincing. The film repeatedly makes the bold claim that "I'll tell you a story that will make you believe in God", and even has characters experience that revelation. I didn't.

I'd say Life of Pi is one of the finest cinematic spectacles of the year (or last year - still getting used to this whole 2013 business). It could have been more, but its none too subtle efforts at sermonising meant I left the cinema irritated rather than with the sense of wonder I felt during some of its more magnificent moments.

krudler

I think with Life of Pi you take away from it what you bring in, if you were of a firm belief there is a god then it will strengthen that, or at least that what the film is claiming. I found it a good basis to think there is no god, the

"which story did you prefer"

line.

conorhal

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There's plenty of spiritually and/or religiously motivated cinema that I really like, even though I don't subscribe to whatever belief system the director does. Terence Malick's output is a good example, or the beautiful Spring Summer Autumn Winter... and Spring. The difference in such examples is that the spiritual / philosophical ponderings are tightly woven into the narrative - enhancing but not distracting from the core story being told. I don't have to agree with some of the themes, but doesn't detract from me getting almost completely bewitched by the whole experience.

And if Life of Pi had have found a more elegant way of articulating its themes, I think this film would have been very excellent indeed. I'd go as far as saying the film has a full hour of greatness. But IMO the film effectively shudders to a halt during its opening and closing segments as it awkwardly verbalises the film's rather shallow and silly ideals - ideals that wouldn't have seemed so ridiculous had they been lingering in the background rather than emphasised through clunky dialogue. The ****ter Narnia stories would be another example of material guilty of this particular crime. The film's greatest crime is it lacks subtlety, with the closing section even retroactively souring that stunning middle hour. o1s1n said it well - it felt like I was being preached to, and the message wasn't in the slightest bit convincing. The film repeatedly makes the bold claim that "I'll tell you a story that will make you believe in God", and even has characters experience that revelation. I didn't.

I'd say Life of Pi is one of the finest cinematic spectacles of the year (or last year - still getting used to this whole 2013 business). It could have been more, but its none too subtle efforts at sermonising meant I left the cinema irritated rather than with the sense of wonder I felt during some of its more magnificent moments.

On reading your analysis I'm inclined to agree with you, hence my reference to it's central premise being a bit 'wishy washy', it's version of belief was akin to Pi's a la carte Catholicism/Islam/Hinduism, aimed at the kind of believer that does Weddings, christenings and Mass on Christmas day, mostly for the ‘atmosphere’. That was a central problem with the book also a lack of ‘faith’ in it’s own premise if you will, but films tend to lay such flaws bare in a very naked manner.

conorhal

krudler wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if he doesn't get an oscar nod.

I'd prepare for a surprise then, I thought he was awful in any of those 'big moments' that really required something genuine to appear on an actors face, of course the whole bluescreen acting thing has a tendency to 'Phantom Menace' even the best actors....

Outkast_IRE

Went to this last night, I went in expecting something special and i left with the feeling that i had just watched something special.

From the excellent story , to the amazing use of 3D ( honestly best use of 3d in a movie to date), beautiful visually, great camera work.

Honestly very little to critise, i would highly reccomend getting to the cinema to see this.

Raekwon

I wanted to go and see this later but my local cinema is only showing it in 2D. Is it worth the hassle of a trip into town and the added expense just to see it in 3D?

cassette50

Raekwon wrote: »

I wanted to go and see this later but my local cinema is only showing it in 2D. Is it worth the hassle of a trip into town and the added expense just to see it in 3D?

Yes.

Outkast_IRE

Raekwon wrote: »

I wanted to go and see this later but my local cinema is only showing it in 2D. Is it worth the hassle of a trip into town and the added expense just to see it in 3D?

yes it is, without a doubt the best utilisation of 3d I have seen yet.

Irish Aris

I, on the other hand, didn't feel that I was preached, because everything religious wise in the first part seemed (to me) to happen so fast to absorb anything important. And I didn't pick anything religious in the last part. But even the main story on the raft gave me a sense of religious symbolism/allegory, so I can understand people (especially atheists) being annoyed. I am not a very religious person myself, but not an atheist either.

Apart from that, this is truly a spectacle. It reaffirmed for me once more that Ang Lee is one of the best directors of the last twenty years.
As previously said, see it in cinema and 3D. Simply awesome, and the best cinematography I've seen in a while.

positron

I was in Belfast last night and decided to check out this movie. I had read the novel before, and as an Indian, I can kinda relate to the early part of the move in many ways, but boy, was I for a surprise when the film started rolling and the started playing a song in my mother-tongue (Malayalam, song is in Tamil, but close).. Imagine living in remote interior China, and you went into see an typical Chinese movie and you hear Father Ted singing 'My lovely horse'. Well, it was that kind of a surprise. Familiar faces too - Tabu, Irfan etc.

Movie was beautiful to look at - exceptionally so - and it has to be seen at 3D, no question about that. Best 3D movie I've ever seen since Avatar - I now truly believe 3D is here to stay, for certain. The religious part - meh. First half is fine, that happens in India, everyone get's curious about everything else, and it's all in good spirit. Second half, and what the story is trying to tell us etc.. meh, weak to say the least, but I knew about it as I had read the book. Believers might get a bigger kick out of it though.

Anyway, wow - I would watch it again just for the visuals.

Raekwon

I ended up going to see it in 3D in The Odeon Stillorgan but it proved to be a mistake. The screen was tiny and there was a distracting emergency exit sign lighting up part of the screen so I didn't really see any amazing stand out 3D like I was hoping.

Even though I was disappointed with the overall cinematic experience it was an enjoyable film, I just wish that it had been on a massive Digital IMAX or iSense screen so I could have fully appreciated it.

Pumpkinseeds

I really really wanted to enjoy the book but I just couldn't force myself to stick with it. Because I found the part of the book that I did read so tedious I won't bother to pay to see the film.

Rabies

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I really really wanted to enjoy the book but I just couldn't force myself to stick with it. Because I found the part of the book that I did read so tedious I won't bother to pay to see the film.

get passed the first third of the book, its tough but it really does get going. I found it hard myself, nearly stopped reading it too.

Going to watch the movie tonight in 3D