(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcollider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Flife-of-pi-poster.jpg&hash=95a27bcfebe4df885a4672d6a7075fe52761abd4)
Release date: November 21, 2012
Starring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Tobey Maguire, Adil Hussain
Directed by: Ang Lee
Premise: The story of an Indian boy named Pi, a zookeeper's son who finds himself in the company of a hyena, zebra, orangutan, and a Bengal tiger after a shipwreck sets them adrift in the Pacific Ocean.
They've done some seriously good CG-work on that boy.
Quote from: Just Withnail on July 25, 2012, 11:29:07 AM
They've done some seriously good CG-work on that boy.
One of the YouTube comments said almost the exact same thing.. I don't think I get it, is the joke that the actual CGI (pretty much everything else in the film) is really bad?
I mean, it is, just seems too subtle a way of putting it.
Also this looks tedious.
Quote from: Pubrick on July 25, 2012, 04:56:12 PM
Quote from: Just Withnail on July 25, 2012, 11:29:07 AM
They've done some seriously good CG-work on that boy.
is the joke that the actual CGI (pretty much everything else in the film) is really bad?
Not just that it's bad, but that
everything else seems to be CG.
I know literally nothing about the book and I can't be bothered to look it up. Does anything happen beyond the kid being on a boat with a tiger? That couldn't possibly be the whole movie, could it?
I've read the book, and the tiger eats the boy pretty early on. I have no idea why they've changed things so much for the movie.
After careful consideration, I've come to the conclusion that you may just be taking the piss.
JB is lying. I've read the book and the tiger IS the boy.
Seriously though, I saw a clip of this in 3D in front of Avengers for some reason and I liked it. It seemed like a really well-made family movie. It'll be sappy and colorful, but I liked what I saw in that clip.
it's a generic trailer aiming for the broadest possible audience because cg tigers cost so much. especially when they transform into an army of shapeshifting nanomachines several paragraphs in. i expect something special because it's Ang. though i did not see Taking Woodstock. i still contend that Lust, Caution is the most underrated film of the 00s.
Quote from: picolas on July 28, 2012, 07:49:37 PMi did not see Taking Woodstock. i still contend that Lust, Caution is the most underrated film of the 00s.
Taking Woodstock was the most boring film of the 00s.
So, I dunno, career rebalanced?
At least until this gets released and he can claim the same title for the 10s.
Hated the trailers too but this is really good. P, get ready for some "Hulk"-y goodness on the visuals/editing/3D.
Tweet (https://twitter.com/modage/status/252050911080366080): Life Of Pi (B) Poignant emotional journey marred by clumsy narrative device but visually it's some next level shit. Wow Ang Lee in 3D.
Review (http://modage.tumblr.com/post/32537157924/nyff-12-life-of-pi-review): I have to admit I was extremely skeptical going into "Life Of Pi." Based on the bestselling novel by Yann Martel, the story — about a young Indian boy stranded with a deadly tiger on a boat in the middle of the ocean — may not read like your typical awards fare but something about that synopsis just seemed too calculated to be anything but cloying. And while not without its problems (mainly pertaining to a clunky storytelling device), the film has moments of transcendent beauty capturing some of the most striking imagery I've ever seen onscreen. After an eye-popping credits sequence featuring close-ups of animals in a zoo (designed to show off the film's 3D), the exotic tale opens unassumingly in Canada where a struggling writer (Rafe Spall) has come to interview a man whose story, he has been told, will make him believe in God.
That man is Pi (Irrfan Khan), a warm man now of middle age who offers up the story of his life. Raised in India by zookeeper parents and taunted by his classmates (for his full name which sounds like the bodily function), 12 year old Pi (Ayush Tandon) struggles to fit in. He's a highly curious boy, who reads constantly and finds himself attracted to various religions even as they conflict with one another. As he enters his teenage years, Pi (now played by newcomer Suraj Sharma) becomes restless until he meets a girl (Shravanthi Sainath) who returns his affections. But due to the economic struggles of running a zoo, his father decides that the family must sell off the animals and use the money to start a new life in Winnipeg, Canada.
The family and their animals board a freighter bound for the Great White North but a few days into their journey, disaster strikes. In a terrifying sequence, a storm sinks the ship and hurls Pi into the ocean as quite possibly the lone human survivor on a raft containing a zebra, hyena, orangutan and a tiger named Richard Parker. The tiger's unusual moniker, Pi informs us, was bestowed through a clerical error where owner and animal's names were switched by mistake on some paperwork. But despite his approachable namesake, Richard Parker is a fierce animal and not a cuddly pet or friend. In an earlier sequence, young Pi had approached the tiger's cage with an offering of food only to narrowly escape danger and be told by his father that anything Pi sees in the animal's eyes are his own feelings reflected and not the animal's own. Pi learns firsthand how dangerous he is when trapped in close confines with the 400 lb. beast.
Over the passing weeks Pi must learn how to survive with his ferocious neighbor or risk death by surrendering himself to the elements. It sounds fairly simple ("Cast Away" + an added emphasis on spirituality) but it's a deceptively tricky story to get right. Over the last decade directors such as Alfonso Cuarón, Jean-Pierre Jeunet and M. Night Shyamalan have all flirted with bringing it to the big screen but it was Ang Lee ("Brokeback Mountain," "Hulk") who finally brought the tale to life. In recent years I've been pretty firmly against CGI as a storytelling band-aid. The technology which allows for anyone to dream up anything seems to have been, for the most part, overused by lazy filmmakers who mistake spectacle for imagination. (It also ages incredibly quickly, just watch "The Avengers" on Blu-ray and try not to notice how already dated and phony the action sequences appear.)
So it's no small feat that while watching this film, I was forced to rethink my entire stance on digital effects. Lee utilizes CGI like a master, painting the water and sky differently for each day spent on the raft — some days its hued pink, others a billion shades of beautiful blue — and sequences set at night take on a surreal quality. My jaw was on the floor for pretty much the entire time Pi was out at sea. "Filmed" on digital cameras in quite possibly the best ever live-action use of 3D (up there with "Prometheus" or "Hugo"), the effect is mesmerizing and is one that could have only been achieved digitally. I tried to imagine a more realistic take on the material, shot on film with practical effects in place of the digital ones and it simply wouldn't have been as powerful.
Unlike some other landmark visual effects pictures, 'Pi' keeps the focus on its central character. Sharma (in his first acting role) is wonderful in the lead, even while acting against a primarily digital co-star (who is never less than convincing either). The film's problems arise mainly from the storytelling sequences that bookend the film. While it may be necessary to get certain information across through reflective narration, the film would've been stronger without them. The middle section of the film dispenses with this device altogether and that's when I was most transported into the story. A third act reveal also doesn't land with the emotional punch it needs to but overlook these problems and what you're left with is a film that takes you to places few films ever do. Emotional without being treacly, spiritual without being preachy and at times truly awe-inspiring, "Life Of Pi" is one of the rare pictures that makes you rethink films and how they should be made.
sometimes this movie is sooo beautiful. nutso beautiful.
i thought i was going to love it when it first began, 'cause it had all these 3d animals. i was like, yes. what i experienced was a full spectrum, from excitement to sleep. but i'll be goddamned if ang lee doesn't know how to make a movie.
the friend i saw this with said she "didn't understand why he couldn't survive in that boat on all the story's cheese."
I felt I was watching two different films: one is a rollercoaster of a spiritual journey with the best 3-d ever made and a kid lost in the ocean in a small boat with tigers and animals and awesome visuals and some very raw power in it. the other one was a dull voice over narration with two boring actors in the most ordinary lit sets in the world, explaining everything to us as if we were imbeciles. It was extremely frustrating. why do they keep doing this? every time a film set in the past has a narrator in the present, the segment taking place "today" is invariably shitty. People appear as generic as possible, and every cinematic aspect is underwhelming. I'm thinking of stuff like Saving Private Ryan or The Green Mile. Life of Pi was better off only in it's main story, and without every symbol explained to a (presumably) dumb audience.
I wish there was a way to just eliminate an hour of this because it was close to being a masterpiece at some points.
dude i wish I put it that way. nice
except i like the older pi (actor). he has the kind of eyes i call swimming pools
I like him too, but his character is boring. Any personality comes from the actor's persona, because every other aspect is made boring by the film.
I read Tobey Maguire was fired from this because Ang Lee felt his performance wasn't working...Compared to what, exactly? To the dude in the film? That guys is the definition of bland.
All that stuff should have been left in the editing room.
went to a life of pi talk, last night at the academy. the discussion was 3d technology. talkers: claudio miranda, bill westenhofer (he made a time-based joke, yes. the joke was a hit), tim squyres, donald elliott, erik-jan de boer, and brad alexander. everyone but ang lee
this stuff is maybe talked about in 3d a lot, but i don't usually read about 3d things
learned the word interocular. it's called io in production. refers to the glasses
learned there was a previz during this, done by claudio, tim, ang, and others, in order to learn about the production methods of 3d before making the 3d movie
a conversation i like is the difference between film grammar from the early years and the film grammar of today. this is a fun way to talk about making movies, which they did. they also talked about the change this is causing for 3d movies, and the challenging aspect of 3d effects compared to the audience's expected grammar
i remembered doyle's comment about claudio. claudio was pretty chill. he explained what he did and etc. it's what you'd expect
i forget if i was going to share anything else. overall the night was kind of boring, but i hung out with friends. k