I found watching 'Life of Pi' such an ordeal that I cannot remember how many times I averted my eyes. The only things that prevented me from leaving were that (a) this is undoubtedly a 'significant' film which really ought to be seen by any serious-minded cineaste and (b) having paid more than twice the admission fee I normally pay, in order to watch this in 3D format, I wanted to be present for at least enough of it to be able to register it as having been 'seen'. In the event I did manage to last out until the final credits.
When I did peep through my fingers (I don't mean that literally) there were moments when the imagery was simply ravishing and breath-taking. The 3D format was at least as good as it was in last year's 'Hugo', some may say even superior as in that masterpiece. There is no doubt in my mind that this film reaches the zenith of the method .
No complaints either about the acting strength of Suraj Sharma who takes the lion's(!) share of screen time - marooned alone with the tiger for most of that time. He fulfilled the role admirably.
Unfortunately the emotional intensity I felt during this film renders me pretty well incapable of making a reasonable value-judgment. If I did it would be an unfair verdict, one terribly biased by my own personal foibles. So, bearing in mind that my scores reflect not whether I considered a given film 'good', 'bad' or 'indifferent', but the extent to which I derived personal enjoyment and satisfaction from the experience, for the first time in these blogs I'm going to decline offering a rating at all. Sorry!
I am glad you went to see it, and it's honest of you to abstain from the review.....I can see your point even though the animals that "suffered" were all CGI
ReplyDeleteI THOUGHT I WAS BAD.....I sobbed buckets at king kong
Although my acute sympathy towards the plight of animals is a trait I don't mind having, J.G., it can be a real nuisance at times. It limits my life in several ways. I can't even pass a fishmonger's stall without having to look away - and a butcher's cannot be even thought about. If I could afford to travel the world I wouldn't, for fear of coming face to face with animals in situations I wouldn't like to be in myself. It's all a matter of treating others no worse than one would like to be treated oneself. Of course most people only apply that principle to humans whereas I, unlike most religions, extend it to ALL sentient beings.
DeleteI didn't see the more recent King Kong re-make for the aforementioned reason but you've reminded me that I did, in fact, see the 1976 version when it was released, which I saw just the once and only remember as having been plain boring.
I went to see this film to recreate my experience with "Hugo." and it was, as you say, "ravishing and breath-taking." Not disappointed at all. No need to say anymore because my reaction to what was going on on the screen was the same as yours.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if you'd be seeing this one, Paul, and reading now that your reaction was congruent with mine is no surprise.
DeleteBtw: a couple of weeks ago you left a comment on my review of 'Quartet' which, unfortunately (and very unusually) I didn't see until several days later. I don't know if you've been back there since, but just to let you know that I left a response there mentioning a thing or two you may not have known about that film.
I'm very glad to read your assessment of this film. I've been anxiously awaiting it. I'll pass on the 3D.
ReplyDeleteFrom what you say I'm not sure if what I've said has lessened any enthusiasm you had, Cubby. I do hope it hasn't put you off, though if you ARE going to see it I'd say that the 3D would be a definite 'plus' - unless your one of those people who experiences headaches or nausea with wearing the specs.
Delete