Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hear this movie is visually stunning with a great story as well. Many great stories have either been or contained metaphors. This actually makes me want to see it more. I have no kids so no worries.
Yes, the visuals are stunning. That's the only good quality this movie possesses. The story is not that great, IMO, notwithstanding any allegory or metaphors therein.
The story just didn't engage me on an emotional level. It reminded me of Cast Away in some respects. Halfway through the movie, I was looking at the time on my phone thinking, "How much longer do we have to watch this kid feed a tiger?". Then they find an island. They leave the island. They hit land. He explains his story. End of movie.
I browsed some Chinese language forums discussing this movie. Everyone is talking about the horror of cannibalism delivered by the movie.
However, when I took a look at American websites, such as Yahoo, nobody even mentioned cannibalism. Instead many say "my daughter loved it" and so on.
It is probably a huge difference between the east and the west. People really pay attention to different things and believe different things.
Life of Pi is like an M.I.A. song. It's supposed to be "deep" but in the end its message is not terribly profound. And the way the story is told on screen leaves something to be desired.
I don't think it's an East or West thing. You're looking at Yahoo for starters. There are a lot of thoughtful American movie critics that had less than glowing reviews of the film.
And a movie is not good simply because it strives to incorporate symbolism (or because it's based on a good book).
I read the book when it first came out and didn't remember too much of it other than I liked parts of it. When I saw the movie advertised on TV, I thought the CGI tiger was interesting and wanted to see it. So I reread the book last weekend to be prepared.
I liked the beginning and the parts describing the animal behavior in the book. I liked the spiritual parts where Pi embraced the different religions. What I did not like were parts of the last quarter of the book which I thought wandered and didn't really draw any kind of conclusion. It left out the narrator it began with. It gave us the Japanese interrogators who seemed to be added too heavy handedly just to introduce another story.
I liked the idea of the alternative ending. Still, to me it was almost as though the last part was written by a different author who wasn't following the story all that well.
I will see the movie, I understand it's rated PG and is not as gruesome as the book can be in parts. But I don't expect the parts of the book I did enjoy to be played all that well in the movie which I understand has a love story that certainly did not appear in the book and I am not talking about the kid and the tiger either.
I read the book when it first came out and didn't remember too much of it other than I liked parts of it. When I saw the movie advertised on TV, I thought the CGI tiger was interesting and wanted to see it. So I reread the book last weekend to be prepared.
I liked the beginning and the parts describing the animal behavior in the book. I liked the spiritual parts where Pi embraced the different religions. What I did not like were parts of the last quarter of the book which I thought wandered and didn't really draw any kind of conclusion. It left out the narrator it began with. It gave us the Japanese interrogators who seemed to be added too heavy handedly just to introduce another story.
I liked the idea of the alternative ending. Still, to me it was almost as though the last part was written by a different author who wasn't following the story all that well.
I will see the movie, I understand it's rated PG and is not as gruesome as the book can be in parts. But I don't expect the parts of the book I did enjoy to be played all that well in the movie which I understand has a love story that certainly did not appear in the book and I am not talking about the kid and the tiger either.
Interesting perspective. I think you'll find the movie equally unsatisfying. For example, the love story you mention is sorta touched on superficially for about five minutes. It almost has no point being in the movie. And the part with the Japanese interviewers (as well as the part with the journalists) seems heavy handed, as you said. It's like those scenes were added to say, "Hey, in case you wanted to know why you've been sitting here for over 2 hours, this is why and here's what possibly did or did not happen." It would be like reading a classic novel and then finding a "Conclusion" section on the final page.
I hate when movies do that. I prefer endings like the one in Shutter Island where the film really makes you FEEL uncertain about everything you've seen rather than a narrator TELLING you that you can't be certain about everything you've seen.
Interesting perspective. I think you'll find the movie equally unsatisfying. For example, the love story you mention is sorta touched on superficially for about five minutes. It almost has no point being in the movie. And the part with the Japanese interviewers (as well as the part with the journalists) seems heavy handed, as you said. It's like those scenes were added to say, "Hey, in case you wanted to know why you've been sitting here for over 2 hours, this is why and here's what possibly did or did not happen." It would be like reading a classic novel and then finding a "Conclusion" section on the final page.
I hate when movies do that. I prefer endings like the one in Shutter Island where the film really makes you FEEL uncertain about everything you've seen rather than a narrator TELLING you that you can't be certain about everything you've seen.
I think the director has to use narrator here because if the alternative story is visualized, the film will be rated R at least, and probably be banned in most countries of the world.
I think the director has to use narrator here because if the alternative story is visualized, the film will be rated R at least, and probably be banned in most countries of the world.
That's not why the movie falls short, IMO. It's not a compelling story. It's Cast Away with a tiger, better visuals and a lackluster ending.
Real tigers are so close to extinction I can't even read or watch. It just does nothing but remind me that they are almost gone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Same here!
