Life of Pi

For the first time in a long time, I found it very difficult to find in a film flash of value added, a release from stultifying intellectual dullness. Because it’s seriously not enough that this Lif of Pi is in colour and 3D. The book is not an intellectual masterpiece either, but at least it leaves a lot more room for our imagination and does not immediately cut dead the offer of an alternative interpretation by using an idiotic summary of which animal represented whom. Compared to the film with its single narrator, the book is also more distinctly structured as a contemplation of the reliability of storytelling, on the infinite adaptability of “our” stories (3.14...). In the book, we are encouraged to exercise greater caution in our judgment if we get from a given person only information that fits their version of the story. The beginning of the book, when Pi prepares the groundwork for what he will tell later, thus makes much more sense than in the film, where the beginning is basically used only to present the multiplicity of paths to higher knowledge (including ordinary earthly love, which is absent in the book and which gives the film an unnecessary melodramatic aspect). Whereas there are several narrators in the book and each of them can pursue their respective goals, e.g. “you will believe in God”, the film lets Piscine do all of the talking and thus leads us to a “religious” interpretation, which is further supported by the unambiguous, magical-realistic visual aspect. While reading the book, which doesn’t skimp on descriptions of the brutalities that man commits against animals in the interest of survival, my head was definitely not inundated with so many colours. The absolutely most powerful moment of the film is fittingly its most visually pure, when Pi merely retells the second version in words and it is up to us to imagine it in colour. Though other scenes (the sinking of the ship, the initial confrontation with Richard) are breathtaking in their execution – long shots, the rocking camera that stays in close proximity to the protagonist – they seem uneven and don’t resonate. In the end, the film offers mainly a visceral experience rather than intellectual or emotional enrichment, which is simply not enough, and the painfully high price of a 3D movie ticket doesn’t help. 65% (2012-12-05)

People like to look for a noble, spiritual dimension in suffering. I suffered like a hyena for two hours, but I didn't find any such dimension (although "my mother is an orangutan" at least brought a wicked laugh to my lips). Objectively, it's very nicely colored, smooth and cleverly told, but I always prefer the adrenaline and animality of 127 Hours over the spiritual Circus Humberto. Perhaps one of the 33 million gods who spiritually sponsor this film will not send me on a ship with Suraj Sharma. Because at the moment I want to kill him. (2012-12-05)

Similar to What Dreams May Come, visually captivating, technically precise, and an essentially empty film outlining religion, family cohesion, and survival adventure. But it’s so tedious that even though the form is self-indulgently mesmerizing, it’s not entertaining. Ang Lee leaned too heavily into the camera and and the visual effects at the expense of everything else, and there’s no originality, let alone this being the film of the year. (2015-08-14)

It’s way too digital. The constant special effects annoyed and disturbed me all the time except for the perfect tiger, as did the camera, and the story seemed to me to just be ordinary. I couldn't worry about the main character during his journey (why should I, when we see him older, whole, alive and healthy at the beginning, right?)... I can't deny the visual impact of the scenes with the sky reflecting in the endless water surface, and I quite liked the interlude with the school of flying fish, but why did everything have to be so kitschy neon and digi-hallucinogenic? Moreover, the music (yes, the Oscar-winning one) is completely bland. Two stars would be too many. (2013-03-09)

I rate this movie five stars for one simple reason. I liked it mostly because it is able to stay on top of all the big religions of the world. It’s kind of a big philosophical view on humans and animals and the world around them. It was really nice to watch and it was even nicer to experience it with Pi, as he was played by a great actor and Ang Lee as an incredibly likeable director added a beautiful, positive and unique atmosphere full of original ideas that you simply have to appreciate. (2013-05-13)