No Country For Old Men

No Country For Old Men

A Review

The 'Stache is BACK!

The 'Stache is BACK!

Like you thought we were dead...

We're back...!

Alas, the Film'Stache holiday is over. As explained in my last post, I took some time off to move house, recoup and refocus. There have been some recent changes in my personal life that effect the running of the site, but I will do my best to deliver what y'all visit for. Film'Stache is back, more enthused and passionate than ever.

A Return to Roots

This renewed round of "Film'Stache-ing" will be a return to roots. This site started as an outlet for film brain-farts, and while I feel that this continued throughout it's run, I also feel like it had become a race to post my thoughts on the latest movie releases and to deliver the latest TV news. While it drove site traffic to an all-time high, to be honest it had become a major stress. Film'Stache had deviated from the original plan.

From today onwards, Film'Stache film reviews will not necessarily be of the latest film releases, but will also feature older films that you may have missed or have forgotten to watch. The site will also include reviews of my personal favourites. Get excited, because future reviews will be completely random and will force some sort of nostalgia on you.

Shush now! I'm watchin' my stories...

Sadly, our TV Updates section of the site will not live on. With continuing development of several favourite television shows, there are simply too many updates to keep on top of! In its place, I will be linking my sources to Twitter and Facebook as the news breaks. On top of that, Film'Stache will begin to review (or provide some sort of input via social media) individual episodes of your favourite shows, such as Game of Thrones Season 3, Mad Men Season 6, and the final season of Breaking Bad.

How dat?

Are you amped? BECAUSE I AM!

As always, thankyou for your continued support. Film'Stache would be nothing without it's audience!

Remember to share the site to your friends and followers online. There is a load of love to be given at Film'Stache headquarters for sharers!


B.

Zero Dark Thirty: A Review

Zero Dark Thirty

A Review

Masters of a genre..

Following The Hurt Locker's huge critical success in 2008, the Kathryn Bigalow/Mark Boal team have truly outdone themselves with Zero Dark Thirty. The director/writer pair have undoubtedly mastered this genre of film making, making their newest film deliver on all of your hopes and expectations, and then more.

I have been waiting for Zero Dark Thirty since first hearing about it. Then, since its release in the US in December, excitement and real anticipation has been brewing deep inside me. I went into the cinema with massive expectations (one of my great downfalls when it comes to enjoying a movie), but Zero Dark Thirty didn't come close to popping my excitement bubble.

[spoilers ahead]

The movie was originally the story of the unsuccessful decade long manhunt for Osama Bin Laden, but had to be re-written when the real-life capture of the terrorist mastermind had been captured and killed. The original story was shelved, and a new script was written from scratch.

The iteration that we see on the screen follows the decade-long story of Maya (Jessica Chastain), a fresh CIA agent recruited out of high school, as she pursues the head of Al Qaeda after the events of September 11, 2001. Maya is taken under Dan's wing (Jason Clark) at a black site in the Middle East, and quickly grows to be a veteran officer. Her experience in the field tells her to trust her gut instinct on certain clues and leads that ultimately lead her and the CIA to find Bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. After months of heavy surveillance and Maya's certainty that Bin Laden is hiding inside, the President gives the go-ahead for a US Navy SEAL team to raid the compound, ultimately leading to the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

When you lie to me, I hurt you.

Zero Dark Thirty opens on a black screen. Sounds slowly filter in - distress calls from the Twin Tower attacks on September 11, 2001. The black screen forces you to listen and relive the terror of that day, an effect that would not be accomplished if the harrowing sounds were played over a video reel. This sets the tone for the rest of the movie, leaving you feeling on edge and with a yearning for justice, instead of revenge.

Now this movie has the unfortunate label of "the torture movie", and while there are very disturbing and convincingly acted torture scenes, the movie as a whole does not deserve this name. The way the film shows torture is not glorified and is not overdone, and therefore it doesn't deserve it's nickname. The US Government calls it "enhanced interrogation techniques", and insists that it didn't happen during the events shown in the movie. While this may or may not be true, the film obviously wants to dramatise some things. It's a movie! It's almost compulsory to have these scenes shown, and is done so in an appropriate manner.

From what I gather, the movie is very tight with the real events that went down. There has been some controversy about how exactly Mark Boal gained access to the information that may or may not be included in the film. You will notice how "real" it feels, despite not knowing a damned thing about what happened. Everything in the movie is uber-detailed, especially the compound raid scene, which feels extremely tactical and planned out. One thing we do know is that the movie spends around 25 minutes on the compound raid scene, which is just shy of the time it took for the real life event [IMDB].

For the most part, Zero Dark Thirty feels very discouraging. It makes you feel the hopelessness experienced by the characters on screen. Al Qaeda keeps bombing and bombing and taking and taking, and Maya and her team are barely breaking any new ground to prevent the attacks. You are forced into this sense of desperation. Couple that with the way the film creates suspense, and it becomes truly gripping. You continually shift your expectations, thinking "something" is coming (a car bombing, another terrorist attack, sudden gunfire), only to have nothing happen. This uncertainty lingers throughout the entirety of the film, and thrusts you into their world.

I'm the mother****** that found this place.

Jessica Chastain can turn anything into gold. She's a massive star right now, and delivers her most stunning performance yet in Zero Dark Thirty. She has used her background as the quintessential mother figure to bring a softness to her character Maya, but is still so single-minded and driven. The scene that truly shows this is shown below:

Chastain's performance is spectacular throughout the entire movie. Not once did it feel like something she's done before, nor did it ever feel like Claire Danes' performance in Homeland, which both surprised and relieved me. 

Chastain is completely believable right up until the end, and her performance at the end of the film concretes her new found stardom. The scene I refer to is the very last one, where the movie's conclusion can be interpreted in a number of ways. However I think it can be agreed that the end scene is a real "What now?" moment for Maya, Chastain's character. An emotional Maya is sitting alone on a plane, and the pilot asks her where she wants to go, to which he receives no reply. Maya is lost - she's just spent twelve years hunting for the man who took so many lives, only to have him killed so unceremoniously. After so long dedicating her life to this, she doesn't know where to go, or what to do with her life.

You can help yourself by being truthful.

The only criticism I have for this film is Chris Pratt, from Parks and Recreation. I heavily associate him with the comedy scene, and when he popped up as a member of the SEAL team that takes down Bin Laden it made me think, "Ok, this could work", but then he spoke. He's doing the same thing he does in everything he does, and removed me from the reality the movie propelled me into.

Despite that one complaint, Zero Dark Thirty is a fantastic watch. It thrusts you into this world and makes you feel uncertain, anxious and thrilled at the same time. Plus seeing this on the big screen really paid off. Whoever pirates this movie is missing out on fifty percent of the experience. Zero Dark Thirty is loud - the force of the automatic weapons, the rumble of car bomb explosions, the chopping of helicopter blades - it is all amplified in the cinema, and truly makes the room around you rumble and vibrate as if you were inside their world, and feels incredibly real. And if you won't watch for the experience, watch for Jessica Chastain. Brilliance.

Zero Dark Thirty: 4.5 out of 5 zero dark 'staches

Gangster Squad

Gangster Squad

A Review

Shoot 'Em Up!

Gangster Squad is set in post-war Los Angeles, where gangster Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn) has risen to be a powerful underworld criminal, with plans to expand his money-making operations. Determined to put an end to Cohen's enterprise, Chief Bill Parker (growling Nick Nolte) puts Sergeant John O'Mara (Josh Brolin) in charge of putting together a team (aka the "Gangster Squad") to bring Cohen down. O'Mara manages to recruit his team: Sergeant Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling), detectives Coleman Harris (Anthony Mackie), Conway Keeler (Giovanni Ribisi), Navidad Ramirez (Michael Pena) and Max Kennard (Robert Patrick). Together, the secret team lead a vigilante-style fight against Cohen's organised crime syndicate.

Gangster Squad is the latest film by director/executive producer Ruben Fleischer, director of Zombieland and 30 Minutes Or Less. Gangster Squad is only his third "real" film, and his inexperience is shown in his new movie. Put it down to over-ambition, but I think this movie should have been shelved for a few years, until he's gained experience from a few more films. This one was too big for him to handle at this moment in time.

First criticisms aside, I really enjoyed this film. Although it's poorly pieced together and fails to live up to expectations, I had such a good time watching this. Ruben Fleischer's vision for this movie ends up looking great - the style of each character, everyone looks great, the gangster violence - 1940's Los Angeles has been recreated brilliantly, though not an over the top, flashy, "look at me" recreation - a good thing.

[spoilers ahead]

"HERE COMES SANTY-CLAUS!"

This movie is badass. The action scenes are spot on. You'll notice the way everyone fights - they really want to cripple their opponents with direct punches to forearms, hits to the ribs and breaking faces. And this movie does not shy away from showing blood, and just the right amount of blood - not over the top "Quentin Tarantino" blood, but something just appropriate. That's not to say that this movie isn't violent - it is full of violence. The first scene shows a guy being torn apart by two cars driving in opposite directions, then having Cohen's dogs eat his insides. 

Each character is different, and I love it. John O'Mara (Brolin) has brought his fight from the war back home, and doesn't stop until justice is served. Jerry Wooters (Gosling) is the smooth ladies man who steals Cohen's girlfriend Grace Faraday (Emma Stone), and is also familiar with Cohen's nightclub hangouts. Coleman Harris (Mackie) brings the black into the team, with his knife being weapon of choice. Conway Keeler (Ribisi) is the "brains to balance the braun", and does intelligence for the squad. Max Kennard (Patrick) is the gun-slinging "cowboy" who never misses his target. And finally Navidad Ramirez (Pena) the Mexican who tags along with Max Kennard, the "apprentice", if you will. Every member of the team has his different strengths and personalities.

There are spots of humour throughout, and made the audience in my cinema laugh so hard. The "jailbreak scene" shows Michael Pena and Robert Patrick's characters outside a jail cell where Josh Brolin and Anthonie Mackie's characters have been locked up. They've have tied a rope between the bars on the window and a getaway car. The setup is obvious, and when it comes down to accelerating the car to pull the bars from the window in awesome jailbreak fashion, the bumper flies off the back of the car, attached to the rope. Though this could be one of the biggest clichés, this really had my audience in stitches. 

My favourite scene has got to be where Cohen's henchmen drag some guy who has wronged Mickey Cohen into an isolated room. At Cohen's command, "You know the drill", the henchmen power up an electric drill and points it to the guy's head. The guy starts screaming, the camera pans to behind an opaque glass window, and you see the blood splatter and death grunt of this guy as the power drill enters his skull. Then it immediately cuts to the next scene of a close-up on a fresh, brain-coloured chicken patty being thrown on a barbecue being held across town. Brilliant.

A Whole 'Lotta Tantrums...

Gangster Squad made me want to throw a tantrum. It isn't what I wanted!! It came so close in a lot of senses.. If the guys just used the camera a little smarter, it would have been a great visual film. There was just one visual scene that I loved, and that is during the "jailbreak scene". The lights have been shut off, and Brolin's character has managed to escape the cell. Now each time a gun goes off, the room flashes with light, and there is like a freeze-frame effect that captures a close up of the action. The movie needed more of that, and more. It could have been such a great visual film! A missed opportunity..

Another swing and a miss was the score. The music used to build suspense works in a glitchy kind of way.. Meaning that one minute you'd feel the thrill of the scene, then with one note or some sort of tweak, you'd lose it. Plus it sounded way too close to the Inception theme in some parts, then tried to mesh it with the standard "action rush" tempo.

The 40's LA lingo is wayyyyy over-stylised and overused. Obviously the way people spoke back then is different to the way we do now, but a lot of the time in this film it doesn't fly - for example, whenever Emma Stone's character talks in this 40's gangster-speak, it just falls to the ground. For her, and a heap of other times with other characters, it just made me screw up my face and ask, "WHY?".

Another thing you'll notice, there's A LOT of temper tantrums in Gangster Squad, and literally made me laugh out loud by the fifth or sixth "RARRRRR I'M SO PISSED!!" *overturns table*

Oh, the major problem with this film, even more so than the misdirection and swings and misses, is that the big bad guy, Mickey Cohen, is way underdeveloped. We're thrown into the film with him torturing someone (the guy and the opposite-driving cars), and it's like "Here's your bad guy. He's bad, believe me. Look at what he's doing, he's bad!" - there's not even a 5 minute visual introduction that explores his origin story. All we know is he's a sour-faced crook, and he's gonna send a henchman to take care of business. The film doesn't make me feel his menace, his villainy. This is the most important thing! Again, it's nearly there, but that's just not good enough. I didn't feel it.

A lot of critics say that the end climax of the film felt underdeveloped. This is because of the major re-write that had to be done on the script in wake of the Dark Knight Rises cinema shooting. The original scene included a cinema shootout, so Warner Bros. decided to have the ending of Gangster Squad re-filmed to what currently happens in the movie. I think the ending went alright. Yes, it felt underwritten. Yes, it felt rushed. But I didn't feel any any script cough and spatter at all. The climax pops off nicely (except for the fact that O'Mara decides to throw down his gun and decides to challenge Mickey Cohen to a bare-knuckle boxing fight before arresting him.... He MUST realise that Cohen is a boxing champion!)

At it's 113 minute running time, the movie felt kinda short, especially in this season of having 2.5+ hour movies. They should have spent more time developing Cohen's back story, and also invest in our hero's back stories. And, if it were a perfect world, have them piece together the script better. And take more time to be smart with the visual effects. And the score. And and and and.....

Don't Shoot Where It's At, Shoot Where It's Gonna Be...

Gangster Squad was a really fun movie. The casting is great, the action scenes are thrilling and they don't hold back. I had such a good time watching it and felt excited to be in this world.

There is a repeated line throughout the film, "Don't shoot where it's at, shoot where it's gonna be". Ruben Fleischer should have taken this advice when making this film, because that's what the end result of this film is: a bunch of shots that have missed their targets.

Gangster Squad...

...3 out of 5 gangster 'Staches

The Hobbit

The Hobbit

A "Hobbit-Sized" Review

A Hobbit-Sized Review

Film'Stache may have left this one too late. I'm thinking you guys are smart, and have already seen The Hobbit at your local cinema. Maybe it's best if we move on and do a simple "Hobbit-sized" review.

Although I liked the Lord of the Rings film trilogy, I am barely a J.R.R. Tolkien fan - so much so that I can barely tell an orc and a goblin apart. The Lord of the Rings films were so full of action, darkness, a lurking threat and danger, and empathy towards the heroes you're rooting for. Sadly, The Hobbit lacks most of these qualities.

[spoilers ahead]

The Hobbit is set 60 years prior to the first Lord of the Rings movie, and tells the first part of the story of Bilbo Baggins's unexpected adventure across Middle-Earth. Led by Gandalf and thirteen dwarves, the group travel to reclaim the dwarves' home that had been taken over by Smaug the dragon. It stars Martin Freeman as Bilbo, all of the regulars from LOTR, plus the dwarf newcomers, led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage).

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Disappointment

I have a few problems with The Hobbit. Firstly, Bilbo Baggins is tricked by Gandalf into hosting a party for Thorin and his band of dwarves, and they present Bilbo with a contract to recruit him to join their quest. Bilbo is very reluctant, and turns them down again and again throughout the meeting, with a final "no" at the end of the night. When Bilbo wakes up in the morning, the dwarves and Gandalf have left, leaving Bilbo's contract on his table. Then all of a sudden, despite his heavy objection towards adventure, he quickly packs his things and goes running after them! I don't get it. He just wakes up, thinking "Ok, sweet, let's go"? Nup.

Next, the recurrence of characters from Lord of the Rings makes the whole universe feel veerrrry small. I imagine that Tolkien's world is quite large, and certainly felt that way in watching LOTR. The Hobbit features the same wizards Gandalf and Saruman, elves Galadriel and Elrond (also revisits Rivendell), an scene featuring Gollum, and also the older Bilbo and Frodo at the beginning of the film. 

Also, it doesn't feel like anything's really at stake in The Hobbit. It's simply an adventure. The film fails to make me care for the new characters. We're told the tale of the dragon Smaug taking over the dwarves' land, but I'm really not feeling the dwarves' desperation. Like, if the whole quest fails, it wouldn't bother me as much as it would if the LOTR quest failed.

Bilbo as a main character is a refreshing take on this world. Martin Freeman brings a lot more humour to The Hobbit, and is also more accepting and courageous in the situations he is thrust into. This guy is no Frodo. Also there are some really nice action scenes in the film, in particularly the final battle at the end of the film. I really loved the score building into something epic here, and was awesome at complementing the climax.

Oh, and 48 frames per second? Amazing. You'll hear a lot of critics complaining , and the people follow that opinion like sheep. My opinion? I'm all for it. 48 fps is noticeably smoother. There is a lot less image flicker than traditional 24 fps. This pays off especially when watching in 3D: action scenes are less blurry, screen brightness is improved, plus for those of you who suffer "3D sickness" (my fiance) 48 fps soothes the sensation. It did take a few minutes to get used to, but it does get better after the initial reaction. My guess is that it will be more effective in future movies as the high frame rate and 3D technologies improve.

One bad thing about the higher frame rate: because 48 fps shows extra frames, it presents extra information to your brain so it doesn't have to guess or fill in what's between the flicker of frames in traditional 24 fps, and so CGI and any props used on a set that are meant to look real in 24 fps will look fake in 48 fps.

A great resource that I found useful in understanding frame rates can be found here: About.com - High Frame Rate Video Playback.

Despite my feelings on the movie's shortcomings, it is a nice film. Coming from someone who hasn't read the book, and hearing that the movie feels stretched out due to it being separated into three films, it really doesn't feel that way. I understand that it would feel that way for someone who has read the book, knows the plot points, and knows the overall story. I can assure you that it doesn't feel stretched out, like in the way that the final two Twilight films do (ughh...). 

Les Misérables

Les Misérables

A Review

For some reason, throughout my entire life, have managed to completely avoid Les Misérables. I haven't read the novel, nor seen the musical or previous movie. I stepped into the cinema completely fresh and unbiased by nostalgia. It should also be noted that I mirrored my brother's feelings on Les Mis when lining up to see the film. Someone would say "Le Mis", and he would say "Lame as". Teehee, still makes me laugh..

[spoilers ahead]

While many of you will be familiar with Les Misérables, I think it may still be great to outline the plot and characters (for all those knuckleheads like "moi").

Le Mis follows part of the life of Jean Valjean (played by Hugh Jackman), a slave who has broken parole to start a new life for himself, while evading capture by the persistent Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe). Jean Valjean manages to build himself into a position of high and wealthy stature under a fake name. Here, Jean finds out that a worker in his factory, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), is sending money to her illegitimate daughter. Jean's foreman fires Fantine from her job, and is forced into prostitution. Inspector Javert enters the scene and attempts to arrest her, but Jean intercedes, and in the process Javert discovers his true identity. Jean is forced on the run again, and this time finds his way to Fantine's daughter Cosette, housed by the crooked Thénardiers (Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen), and takes Cosette under his care. Nine years later, the French Revolution is gaining momentum. Cosette has grown (into Amanda Seyfried), and develops a relationship with Marius (Eddie Redmayne). Later, Jean mistakes an attempted robbery of his house as Javert being on his tail again, and so is forced to flee once more, tearing Cosette from her lover Marius. The next day, Marius and his band of students start the first assault of the Revolution. Word finds its way to Jean that Marius is leading this battle, and so goes to protect Marius for Cosette. In the meantime, the students had captured Inspector Javert and had been holding him behind their walls. Jean finds him, and frees him. Unable to piece together Jean's generosity and his own civil and moral beliefs, the Inspector commits suicide. Following on, most of the students leading the battle had been killed, with Marius injured badly, and so Jean drags him to safety to heal. The story develops further to Jean's own death, led to Heaven by the spirit of Fantine, and joins the fellow dead for a spectacular uplifting ending. 

The plot as described sounds big, and is indeed quite massive! The original novel, written by Victor Hugo in 1862, was divided into five volumes with multiple books, for a grand total of 365 chapters. It is considered to be one of the longest novels ever written, and it REALLY shows in translating this to film. With the main plot straying into subplots of intertwining characters, the story feels far too epic to be contained within one movie. So much so that alot of potential story is sacrificed to fit within the 2 hour and 38 minute running time (which is still a huge movie), and the each scene is introduced and explored way too fast. In saying that, Les Misérables is filmed as a musical, and a damned good one at that. It simply wouldn't make sense (financially, creatively and practically) to divide the film into the five separate volumes, or into a conventional trilogy, for example.

Les Misérables really puts its cast to work, with most (if not all) of the dialogue is sung by the actors. Typically, the soundtrack for a musical film is recorded months in advance, and the actors mime the performance during filming. On this film however, Tom Hooper (director, The King's Speech) recorded the live performance of the actors singing on set in order to catch the actor's spontaneity, as opposed to having to concentrate on lip syncing perfectly. The actor would wear an ear piece with a live feed of a piano playing the song, to keep the singing in key. Hence, due to the nature of the performance, the piano player was forced to follow the pacing of the actor, not the other way around as usual.

Another great move by Tom is the use of many continuous close up shots of the actor's faces during their singing performances. This is definitely something that would be missed in the stage show, and the opportunity to do so is really take advantage of in this film. The camera captures every subtle facial movement, and really adds to the emotional weight of each scene. Also, the use of long, sweeping shots have been taken advantage of sometimes to introduce a scene. For example, the very first shot in the film flies in to Hugh Jackman's character, and in the process shows the rest of the slaves, under the Inspector's command, pulling in a massive ship on dangerous waves. 

However, despite the praises given to this film, throughout I found myself tiptoeing between fidgety and entertained. The "Landlord scene", where we're introduced to Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter (henceforth known as SBC and HBC), was sorely needed. It is the funniest scene in the whole movie, and dang did it take a while to come. And although it made me feel like Les Mis should be crossed with Sweeney Todd, SBC and HBC give the most entertaining performances in the whole film. And I love their little tidbits given throughout the rest of the film, giving much needed comedic relief.

In watching Les Misérables I couldn't hope but notice and take note of the themes. These ones have been taken directly from my notes (very quickly skimming over):

• Religion and Christianity: there is a strong presence of the church and references to God's forgiveness.
• Differing views of God: Jean Valjean views God as the ultimate forgiving "second chance" God, whereas Inspector Javert views God as fully backing up his plan to bring down Jean (the "judgemental God").
• Poverty: everywhere.
• Social class: the wealthy have all the power in this age. Les Misérables explores different social statuses: slaves, crooks, the wealthy...
• Oppression: the government's oppression on the people, the employers on employees, slave masters on the slaves...
• Freedom: Jean Valjean's freedom from slavery, Cosette's freedom from the Thénardiers.
• Sacrifice: Fantine works tirelessly to provide for Cosette, and sacrifices her own life for her.
• Forgiveness: Jean's forgiveness of Javert, where he has the chance to kill Javert but instead lets him free.
• New chances and hope: Jean + Cosette's hopes for better lives, ultimately delivered to them.
• Love and Romance: Not only romance between Marius and Cosette, but also the fatherly love of Jean and motherly love of Fantine towards Cosette.

There'll be a few more themes not noted, I bet, and I think this movie will make for a great high school English class study. Each of the themes noted above could be expanded and have paragraphs written about each!

Summing up, this film really worked for a lot of people. While I didn't feel the emotion of every song and situation, others around me were sniffling, snorting and crying. Don't get me wrong - the movie does pull on your heartstrings, but I think the overload of singing took away the magic of each situation. While it was entertaining, I loved the songs, each actor's performances, and the timeline development throughout the film, it just didn't work for me.

Life of Pi

Life of Pi

A Review

Whenever I see a trailer with tag lines such as "When all you've ever known is lost", anything mentioning "courage" and "hope", looks to be fantastical, dreamy and hyper-real, plus shows all of the glamour shots in one hit, I trust that it will be a lame film.

Fortunately for me, my fiance pulled me into the theatre to see this. I went in not so keen, expecting that I would hear nothing but a Coldplay concert over a sappy, heart warming story of survival..

..but I am pleased to report that I was pleasantly surprised!

[spoilers!]

The film opens with an older Pi Patel (played by Irrfan Khan) telling an author about his life story, who thinks it would make a great book. The narration flows into flashback mode, telling of Pi's young life growing up in India (younger Pi played by Suraj Sharma), where his parents owned a zoo. When Pi is 16, his father brings news that he is going to sell the zoo and move the family to Canada to ensure a better future. On the way to Canada, the ship that Pi's family and zoo animals are on encounters an epic storm in the pacific, ultimately sinking the ship and everyone on board. Pi manages to escape on a life raft, and so his story of survival begins.

One of the things I love about Life of Pi is that it gives a very decent introduction. I haven't read the novel that this is based on, but the film feels very "novel-like" in the way that the characters are set up. The introduction shows details of Pi's upbringing and his life experiences that influence his religious beliefs. I'm so glad that the movie didn't make the mistake of giving a brief setup, leaving the rest of the time for "survival mode". The time left for the survival story after the setup is very appropriate and fitting, and no fidgeting was experienced as I had dreaded!

The film makes great use of 3D. You'll see the frame size of the film changing to include black bars top and bottom of the film so that flying fish can literally leap out of the frame, you get prodded in the eye by Pi's "tiger training pole", and just a lot of little things (and big things, especially the ship sinking!). And after watching The Hobbit in 48fps 3D, I can only wonder what the high frame rate would have looked like in this movie - maybe it would have been put to better use here than in The Hobbit.

Life of Pi is full of absolutely stunning visuals, like nothing you could imagine. The animal CGI is very convincing, almost spot on. There are times throughout the film where you really can't distinguish if the animals you're seeing are real or not, a very special predicament to find yourself in when watching cinema.

Another aspect of this film that I love is the use of a very lonely score when Pi is at sea. Often at times the scene will cut to a shot of Pi in the lifeboat from far away, accompanied by a series of eventual dongs and bongs, accentuating how lonely he is at sea, without a soul but his own.

What I thought would be an uplifting story of courage, hope and survival (and while it still delivered on these), turned out to be a very gritty and disturbing film once you know how it ends. Like, when you actually substitute in your mind what is given away at the ending with what has happened in the film, you realise that what Pi went through on the water was truly horrific.

I'm very hesitant in giving away the ending, because it was a bit of a shock for me not having read the book or researched the film before seeing it, but it would be very hard to convey my feelings on this.. So I'll say it again, serious SPOILERS! Basically, there are two versions of the same story told. One story is what the film bases itself on. The uplifting story of a boy lost at sea, trapped on a boat with a variety of exotic animals, one by one killed off for the sake of animal survival, leaving just Pi and the tiger to develop a relationship. The other version of the story is what happened in real life, the story that Pi told everyone when he is saved. The ship sunk, he escaped on a lifeboat not with animals, but with his own mother, a sailor with a broken leg and the ship's cook, who killed the sailor and Pi's mother to eat and use as bait. The tiger represents Pi's own self, and the time spent on the water with nobody to be afraid of but himself. It is a story of real human brutality.

Parents, stay calm. The movie handles this in a particular way, and for good reason. The entire film bases itself on telling the amazing, dreamy story with the exotic animals. Then at the end, instead of telling the real story in a visual medium as with the rest of the movie, it is simply Pi recounting and telling the story by word of mouth, with the camera view slowly creeping up onto Pi's face as he tells the truth - "boring dialogue" that your kids won't bother listening to or even piecing together like I have above.

One beef with this film is the "island scene". Pi wakes one day to find his lifeboat washed up at a mysterious island full of meercats. He stays the night, only to realise that the island was "carnivorous" and devoured everything on it. So the next day, Pi sets sail again. Then CUT, next scene, he's washed up at the Mexican coastline where he is discovered and taken to safety. 

I really do not get the significance of this scene. Why include it, besides to show a million land animals as opposed to a million fish? Then having immediately been discovered by Mexicans and put in safety the very next scene? Why have nothing in between these two scenes? Why even include the "island scene"? It felt rushed and unnecessary.


Life of Pi has fallen into a million critic's "Top 10" lists for 2012, and I understand why. I laughed, I cried, a quality performance by newcomer Suraj Sharma, plus awesome, just awesome visual effects - it's simply great film making. Life of Pi is currently up for three Golden Globe nominations, including Best Picture (Drama) and Best Director.

While I agree that this film should be nominated for these awards, I don't believe it should win. Despite every praise I've given Life of Pi, I feel it tries too hard. People will obviously love it, and has knowingly made itself the obvious choice for Best Picture and Best Director.

Summing up, Life of Pi is a very entertaining film, one that I found myself so surprised to have liked. I recommend you go see it, and I hope you have the same reaction as me: "I am SO glad it wasn't lame!"