2013: The Year in Film: "Life of Pi" Review

So I make an effort to see every flick nominated for "Best Picture" every year.. and this year "Amour" and this one were the last two. I don't know why, particularly, but I never really had any desire to see this one until it was nominated for Best Picture. It may have been because the trailers didn't sell me, sort of giving off a "family-friendly" vibe. (SO not my scene) It may have been the lack of recognizable actors. (sorry, Ang Lee, but the dude who played a villainous OsCorp scientist in Amazing Spider Man isn't drawing me in..) Whatever it was, I completely ignored this one despite strong reviews.. and I'm really sorry I did.

Based on a widely popular book (Supposedly Obama's favorite!) that is alleged to offer proof of the existence of God by fans and the author, Life of Pi is brought to the big screen by Ang Lee, a Taiwanese director most famous for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Brokeback Mountain and the divisive Eric Bana Hulk. The story centers on a young Indian boy named Pi (short for Piscine) as he comes of age and explores his spirituality in an Indian zoo. When Pi's father decides to sell his zoo and move the family to Canada, they embark on a Japanese cargo ship that ends with Pi sharing a lifeboat with a bengal tiger named Richard Parker. (Long story)  I'll leave the spoilers there, but suffice it to say that Pi struggles to survive and seek rescue for both himself and Richard Parker.

The Good:
- This is a beautifully shot film. Straight up. The shots are all spectacular, and I haven't seen 3D used this effectively since Avatar. 3D is used to expand the space and enhance the beauty of the film rather than as a gimmick or ploy. (Take note, hacks) There are several scenes in the open ocean that are simply breathtaking and truly the type of thing that make film such a valuable and irreplaceable artistic medium. Film, when done right, has all of the beauty and wonder of nature's splendor.. and it's accessible anywhere by anyone.  That's amazing.  (I know that sounded pretentious but it's goddamn true) Evidently there was a mix of real tigers and CGI used for Richard Parker, and he's as convincing  CGI creature as I've ever seen. Really great work.
- The interweaving narrative is extremely effective for progressing through what is often a grim and strange ride. This is really 3 films in one, a family film about growing up on a zoo, a survival tale, and a tale about a story between two adults. The way that Lee interweaves the tale keeps it extremely compelling.
- The acting. Newcomer Suraj Sharma is utterly enthralling as the ever-optimistic and determined titular Pi.  Where most anyone would have despaired and given up, Pi endures, and Sharma gives him a wit, intelligence and charm that really serves to flesh out the character.  As Pi's skin darkens and he loses weight along with his character.. it's truly convincing.  Let's be honest, it wouldn't be any fun to watch a boring dude hang out in a boat with a CGI tiger.. and the film uses several narrative techniques to keep us interested.
- The plot. I wouldn't go so far as to say it serves as proof of God... but it's certainly proof of the value of spirituality, in any of its myriad forms.  This is a powerful tale of hope and survival that's well worth telling.  I'm sure fans of the book imagined it would border on the impossible to bring this story to life on the big screen but let me tell you that he does it and then some.  Without having read the book (yet), I can tell you that Pi's story is emotionally rousing and powerful... and the visuals are simply incredible.  Everyone involved should be proud.



The Bad:
- This is a very good, bordering on great film, so there simply won't be a lot here.  If I do have to offer some bad, the actors playing adult Pi and the writer simply weren't interesting or compelling.  I was much more interested in the story being told than I was with the people who basically serve as narration vessels.  Yes, I understand that that's the point - however, surely there could have been some middle ground? It seems odd to have people feature so prominently in your movie and just offer so little.

In all, this is a beautifully shot, well-acted, tremendously made film that deserves all of the accolades it rightfully deserves.  If I have to speculate as to why it failed, I'd guess that audiences didn't quite know what to make of it.  An often whimsical, heavily spiritual (without being explicitly religious) survival tale featuring an Indian teenager and a bengal tiger? Audiences were likely as confused as I am. This is no preachy kid-fest... this is an emotionally resonant, powerful, rewarding tale of survival and the bond between all things.  Richard Parker WILL make you cry.

8.5/10.  Having seen 8 of the 9 best picture nominees I'm ranking them as follows: 1. Zero Dark Thirty, 2. Django Unchained, 3. Argo, 4. Life of Pi, 5. Silver Linings Playbook, 6. Lincoln, 7. Les Miserables, 8. Beasts of the Southern Wild.  Trying to see Amour before Sunday, 2/24.  Y'all will hear about it.  See Life of Pi!

2013: The Year in Film: "Zero Dark Thirty" Review

Kathryn Bigelow, a director who had no-doubt action movie bona fides, shocked the world with "The Hurt Locker", a brutal military thriller that took the Oscars by storm three years ago. Established as one of the few in Hollywood who can handle politically explosive issues in an even-handed and honest way, that made her a no-brained to handle the potentially controversial story of the CIA's hunt for Osama Bin Laden leading up to his death in May 2011. This flick rested on potentially contentious ground, being released amidst a highly charged partisan political climate and being seen as potentially bolstering an incumbent president. In addition, the flick featured unprecedented access by the film crew to sources linked to the mission itself, promising as real a look at the largest manhunt in human history as possible from a major studio picture.

The film focuses on a small, elite group of CIA operatives tasked with finding the world's most notorious and wanted man, Usama Bin Laden, following 9/11. The trail gets hot and cold through multiple wars, but one agent stays the course - Maya. (played masterfully by Jessica Chastain) Of course, we all know the ultimate ending, so the question becomes whether or not the film succeeds in providing the necessary tension and intrigue to justify its lengthy runtime. No worries, the answer is a resounding "yes".

The Good: The cast, especially the leads, are great. Chastain, whether or not she ultimately wins Oscar, is a revelation. She does the bulk of the lifting here, and bears the pressure and determination of the decade-long hunt for a ghost masterfully. Jason Clarke (minor boy), Kyle "Coach Taylor" Chandler, Mark Strong, Joel Eddelston and others flesh out the cast and are all extremely effective, especially Clarke, but make no mistake, this is Chastain's show. By centering on her character the film puts a human face on the manhunt, and as we see Maya struggle against forces working against her the chase takes on real stakes. The plot moves crisply, effectively moving through the years and from Pakistan to Afghanistan to CIA black sites to Washington DC in a way that ramps up the intrigue and keeps things interesting while never feeling jumbled or confusing. This is no small feat. The cinematography and filmmaking is, quite simply, near-perfect. The film feels hyper-real, the brief scenes of punctuated action are simply brutal and the final raid on Bin Laden's compound is one of the more suspenseful scenes I've seen in recent year. Considering we all know what happened, that's obviously an impressive performance. The script is filled with enough insider language and jargon that you (or I, at least) feel like an insider without it being so dense that the goings-on are incomprehensible. Bigelow again successfully walks that line of showing without judging or commenting, choosing to let the film speak for itself. This is the treatment this story deserves. A partisan hack could have mangled it and made something fleeting, instead Bigelow is clearly devoted to creating a quality product, and it shows.

The Bad: there is very little bad here. One criticism I have is that the film, with its massive cast, made some questionable choices. I love Chris Pratt as much as anyone and respect Mark Duplass, but casting them as a Navy SEAL and CIA analyst seem questionable at best. Another criticism is that the film by and large entirely glosses over the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. While I understand that it has a mission, to tell the story of the Bin Laden manhunt, the fact that those conflicts consumed countless resources that could have been used to crush Al Qaeda and Bin Laden seems highly relevant.

In all, this is an important film. It's masterfully crafted, alternately funny, brutal, but always honest, and features a near-perfect performance at its heart. From the African embassy attacks in 1998 (really, you could argue starting with the first WTC bombing in 1993) through his death in 2011, Bin Laden was US public enemy #1. The triumph of a small group of Americans is a story that's simply essential. I've started calling it "The Social Network" for geo-politics.  It's a character-driven thriller with stakes that would reverberate worldwide. Far from being a jingoistic rah-rah piece it's an important piece of social commentary. If you remember 9/11 and the war on terror, see this movie. If you don't, you should see this movie even more. See this movie, it's the best of 2012, plain and simple. This is filmmaking at its finest.

9.5/10.

[As an aside, I'd like to comment on the silly contention that the film condones torture that's been circulating among some. Plain and simple, this film pursues no political agenda. It passes on innumerable opportunities to score points with one side or the other, pursuing a cold, almost documentarian touch over more emotional or exploitative options. It depicts torture because torture happened. Pretending it didn't would be doing the story a disservice. If anything, the film condemns violence as brutal and soul-sucking for all parties involved.]