The tiger is fine, other than some sea sickness, but there are other disturbing animal deaths.
One thing the movie drives home is that a wild animal is not your friend and does not have emotion. It is a wild animal that will act like a wild animal and any emotion you see in its eyes is just a reflection of your own emotions.
Bad things happen to some other animals but it’s mostly off camera. The movie is rated PG-13 and isn’t very graphic.
I saw the movie on Saturday (haven’t read the book). I thought it was very, very well done. I usually don’t bother with 3D but I’m glad I did this time, it was really beautiful.
I was a bit perplexed by how incredible - unbelievable, really - the story was, until the end of course. Then I had a strong need to discuss the end with someone but I was all by myself!
The movie will deservedly earn Oscar nominations for picture/director/screenplay and a bunch of technical awards for f/x and cinematography.
In the book the scenes with the adult Pi are just descriptions of him puttering around the house and just general glimpses of his daily activities. . . and they’re very vague at first. It’s kinda disturbing to hear that they changed that, so that he’s telling the story as an adult?
Um, I’ve listened to the audiobook (unabridged) about 10 times… he IS telling the story in the book, as an adult, to a listener who supposedly goes on to write the book. That’s not a change.
I don’t think so. The adult sections are in 3rd person perspective. The other parts are in first person but it’s not specified that he’s speaking them as an adult and it’s not told as if he’s speaking to an interviewer or an audience. At least I did not get that sense when listening to the audiobook. I listened to the audiobook as well. That’s a very excellent audiobook.
Well, somehow I missed that aspect. We were driving across the country at the time. Maybe I forgot it. I just remember the decriptions of Pi as an adult in 3rd person and then the main narrative in 1st with a very immediate feel.
I wanted to read the book but I was afaid that it would not end. I guess I was just being irrational.
I’m going to see this tomorrow with a friend. We’re torn between seeing it in IMAX or not. My friend would prefer the IMAX, and I’m afraid to suffer from motion sickness (it’s happened to me during a movie shown in IMAX). Did anyone here see it in that kind of format?
Are you talking real IMAX or the fake.
Pi would be fake because it wasn’t filmed in IMAX.
I don’t know what you mean by real IMAX or fake. This article explains the situation with Life of Pi and IMAX: Imax Books Ang Lee’s ‘Life of Pi’ For Select International Screens – The Hollywood Reporter
I haven’t read the book but I thought the film was wonderful. I gather it is mostly faithful to the book in which case I am puzzled as to why it was considered “unfilmable”. While the details may be unusual the main story is a fairly straightforward survival-in-the-wild adventure.
Apparently the narrator is a modification from the book but it was a good decision. Irrfan Khan is a terrific actor and he brings a tone of wry reflection which complements the main action nicely.
IMAX used to mean films that were filmed in IMAX format. These tened to be nature films, documentaries about the sea or space. Movies, back when they are “filmed” use 35mm (millimeter) or sometimes 70mm film. IMAX film was huge by comparison. (about 4 inches square) The image quality on IMAX is tremendous and so obviously better than what the regular movies used. But that film was much more expensive and the cameras were very large and difficult to handle. (and loud) that using them for “entertainment” movies just wasn’t practical. Although a few were made. (Wings of Courage)
These screens were typically at planetariums and places like that. But, megaplexes started adding IMAX screens, to show IMAX movies. (the nature films) But, since nature films don’t really do late night business, the theatres would throw back up prints onto the IMAX screen for an extra midnight show. The image does not fill the IMAX screen. IMAX films are basically square. Hollywood movies are rectangular.
IMAX didn’t like this at first but flash forward a few years and you know how THX has “this screen is THX certified” program, well IMAX started to put their stamp on regular movie screens. These screens are just a little bit bigger and much louder and charge you an extra 2 or 3 bucks to see the IMAX version of Star Trek. But it isn’t really IMAX. Or “this is not your father’s IMAX”.
You probably don’t even get that reference.
Well, until fairly recently the idea of filming a boy in a boat with a tiger **was **fairly “unfilmable”.
The book was published in 2001. A passable CG tiger was possible even then and the technology has been getting better every year.
Thank you for the explanation re IMAX.
As for the words I quoted from your post, colour me amused : I’m 66 years old and I’ve always been a fan of commercials and cars.
Great film. Made you think but you could also sit back and enjoy it.
The “twist” reminded me a bit of Don Juan DiMarco.
I was hoping the second version of the story would be acted out, was looking forward to seeing more of Gérard Depardieu. I went to the movie with a friend, at the beginning he asks me if I believe in god, I said no, how about you. When it’s convenient he replied. At the end I asked again and he said, I liked the tiger story best. Ha!
Depardieu - hmmm, depart from god?
Hmmm, maybe I just had an entirely different interpretation than others in this thread (but I guess I have people who believe as I do around the interwebs ;)). I thought the 2nd version was just something he told to the Japanese guys to get him out of there, but the 1st version is actually the truth. Is it fantastical and unbelievable? Of course it is.
I think though the last scene of the movie (where it is shown that Richard Parker was thinking of Pi before going into the jungle) clinches, I guess at least for me, that that story is supposed to be the true one - but some times one has to bury the truth because others won’t believe it.
Hmmm, though reading around the interwebs I guess the point is that (at least the point is more clearly stated in the book) either can be true and the point is which one do you believe. I guess Pi’s dad did say that he didn’t care if what he believed was opposite to his, as long as Pi made a choice.