Life of Pi

"The Life of Pi" is a film that I had been putting off for a while, but in the end, I managed to get to it and I don't regret it at all. I was afraid of how it would turn out, what the film would actually be about, that it would be quite boring, a struggle for life on a boat with a tiger, it just didn't seem like something that would impact me, but one should never judge a book by its cover. In this case, it definitely held true and I am really glad that my girlfriend and I didn't miss this film. Ang Lee is a director who can always surprise, both in a positive sense and unfortunately in a negative sense - see "Hulk". More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2013/02/pi-jeho-zivot-2012-85.html (03/22/2013)

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. (12/06/2012)

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% (12/05/2012)

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. (06/01/2020)

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. (08/14/2015)