Escape to the Movies: Life of Pi

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

AxelxGabriel:
[quote="leviadragon99" post="6.394945.16032509"]
See, it's not "God" that ever did anything bad to people due to religion in the past. It's always been Man. We're always quick to blame God, but it's always been man who did horrible things in the name of God. There is corruption and greed in other legitimate institutions, but you blame the men, not the institution itself.

If one believes the Bible to be a true account, this is simply not accurate.

pearcinator:
-snip-

Also, Atheists are going to go to town on this...they get more riled up on this stuff than they should. Atheists take the bible more literally than Christians do (well definitely more than I do and I am a Christian). To me the Bible is just a collection of stories about morals (good and bad and all that shit).

So, what you're saying is that in order to be a good Christian you shouldn't believe in Jesus / God?
I am an atheist and I only have a problem with Christians that take everything in the Bible seriously.
As i contemplate not posting this I realize that I have not made it far by being nice to people who I don't like.

FireDr@gon:
Do you think we'll see a film version of The Alchemist? The two books seem to have very similar themes.

God I hope not. The alchemist has a main character who has little to no personality and the pseudo spiritualist philosophising comes off about as deep and soul enriching as making a novel out of the messages in fortune cookies. I really really don't understand why The Alchemist is so well loved, whereas Life of Pi is a very good novel which despite the religious themes comes across as quite balanced and not trying to force some easy resolution.

Also either Bob missed the point or the movie doesn't get it across properly (hasn't come out here yet) because the whole point of which story the people believe at the end isn't suggesting that you SHOULD believe in God because it'll make you happier, it's more of a comment on the fact that people do believe (on a subconscious level) because they're scared of a world where awful things happen for no reason. And it's doing the whole self-reflexive fiction thing where the book/film examines the nature of story-telling which is really popular at the moment. See: Stranger than Fiction, The Dark Tower, Lannark etc.

I thought the religious stuff behind the movie was rather interesting, actually. It's not actually saying that you SHOULD believe in God because it's more comforting, just that some people tend to do so. Actually, everyone essentially believes what they believe because it makes them feel better. Whether or not it's believing in a God because you don't want death to be the end, or believing in the lack of a God because you feel that it's more "correct," and that's more important than you than a happy end.
For example:


Of course, I could just be growing some epileptic trees.
Also, I thought the whole "Muslim Catholic Hindu" thing was cool, because it is essentially saying that all religions are pretty similar, which they are.

I really liked the book, and although it's close to eight years since I read it, I still clearly remember my mind doing a double take so hard that I somersaulted at the "reimagining" at the end.

I don't remember the book being out to convert anyone to anything, just a boy in an increasingly awful situation.

Fuckin' tiger in his boat. Bad place to be.

Now I want pie and pizza. Thanks.

I read the Life of Pi a few years ago when it first came out and don't remember Pi being that annoying, but do remember it being a bit "pretentious" in a similar way as Bob describes. I really enjoyed that review btw (have not seen movie) so way to go Bob!

snd_dsgnr:

If one believes the Bible to be a true account, this is simply not accurate.

The Bible. That was written by MAN. That has also had numerous rewrites and edits throughout history.

As far as I understood it, it just said "people will choose the happy story because that would make them feel better". How is this anti-atheist / pro-theist?

Would rather call it anti-human. Choosing fabrication over fact is a regular reaction for almost all people. Heck, see how everyone who claim "they only believe in science" choose the studies that are coherent with their views as facts, and the studies that disapprove their views as "wrong" or "not correctly tested".

It shows how feeble we humans are when it comes to faith, and where we put it. Now, how this proves God exist I dont know, but flipping out because the word "God" is mentioned in a positive way is a great way to miss the point the movie makes.

So, theism: A strict set of rules where one must pray and worship one's god and follow the strict rules of this being including what you can and can't eat, what you can and can't do, where and when you can and can't do it where the slightest bit of disregard for any of these will lead to eternal damnation and has been the cause of so many wars and deaths.

Atheism: Try not to be too much of a dick.

Yes, Pi, believing sounds like so much fucking fun! Honestly, why do people need such petty reasons and reassurances that their life might be important. You're unimportant on a global scale, as am I. Is it not enough to be important to the people around you?

The book is shit boring, I had to read it for YR12 english D:

Mmmmmmm, Pumpkin Pie <3....wait, was I just watching something
>. >
< .<

04whim:
So, theism: A strict set of rules where one must pray and worship one's god and follow the strict rules of this being including what you can and can't eat, what you can and can't do, where and when you can and can't do it where the slightest bit of disregard for any of these will lead to eternal damnation and has been the cause of so many wars and deaths.

Atheism: Try not to be too much of a dick.

Yes, Pi, believing sounds like so much fucking fun! Honestly, why do people need such petty reasons and reassurances that their life might be important. You're unimportant on a global scale, as am I. Is it not enough to be important to the people around you?

Y'know, if you read the book or watched the movie (maybe; for all I know, the movie fucked everything up), you'd have an answer.

I don't watch movies telling me to be religious due to my own religious views. I won't say what they are on this site for the reason that I feel this isn't the place for it but I will say I won't change my views for some type of " entertainment ".

Wesley Brannock:
I don't watch movies telling me to be religious due to my own religious views. I won't say what they are on this site for the reason that I feel this isn't the place for it but I will say I won't change my views for some type of " entertainment ".

It can be worth exposing yourself to different views, if just to test your own convictions or to understand the opposition, so you can fight it. (Which is why I sometimes read racist/anti-gay/religious stuff.)

It's not very entertaining, though, if it's smug or just preaching.

But even if a character holds some views, it doesn't mean the work is trying to push those views. More I think about this, the more its message seem anti-religious to me.
At the very least, it's the observation that people prefer a comfortable lie to a gruel truth, which I can agree with.

pearcinator:

Also, Atheists are going to go to town on this...they get more riled up on this stuff than they should. Atheists take the bible more literally than Christians do (well definitely more than I do and I am a Christian). To me the Bible is just a collection of stories about morals (good and bad and all that shit).

But the problem is that a lot of Christians do take their holy book literally. Or claim to. Usually they kinda cherrypick things to support their views and haven't even read the whole book.

I try not to assume all Christians are the same, though.

Ignoring the whole religion debate going on here - the film sounds a lot like Amelie. I like Amelie. While that kind of sugary whimsism can get a bit sickening, I can be a nice in small doses. Me and my girlfriend are going to the cimema for her birthday, I think this sort of film could be cool to see with her.

While I kind of agree with the assessment as a whole, I couldn't help but feeling that MovieBob got into a bit of a personal vendetta over the purported message of the story. Allow me to reiterate: fanatic atheists are just as bad as fanatic other-religious-people.

There's also the other problem: THE STORY DOES NOT RECOMMEND RELIGION!

Ultimately, you could also turn the morale around: i.e. "People tend to turn away from reality because religion if more convenient" - where does the reading a recommendation for religion into it part come in? The original book was very ambiguous over what it actually WANTED you to think, and so, for all I have heard, is the film.

I thought that the movie looked like shit when I saw the trailer for it before Skyfall. I laught my ass off when I saw. It looks so silly to me.

Well, it's all good and well to live a Life of Lie, so long as there's no practical difference to one of truth, and nobody gets harmed, oppressed, or discriminated because of it.

Guess that latter part of the analogy doesn't in the least carry over to religion.

That Calvin and Hobbes bit at the end made my day :D

The same reason MovieBob doesn't like this movie is the very same reason I put down the book it is based on two years ago.

Now this was a review with the spoiler section done right! Although the silent images of flashing pies did make me hungry while I waited for the text to tell me to unmute.

MovieBob is doing a huge disservice to the movie. The religious message isn't heavy handed at all. The quirkiness complaint was down right retarded. I don't know about you but if I was on ship and their was a huge thunder storm outside, I would want to see it. It also helps the movie because it creates a lighthearted tone that gradually gets torn apart as the movie goes on. I'm not a religious person and I was able to appreciate the movie, I don't know whats going on with Bob, but people should disregard this review or approach it with extreme skepticism, as I've noticed he seems to use these reviews as an excuse to vent.

It reminds me of his Rango review where he said it wasn't worth seeing, later that year it gets the Oscar for best animated picture. :/
Okay MovieBob...

The book is rather good, just saying. The plot twist at the end is great.

Markunator:

Stabby Joe:
Pretty cynical episode but I'm intrigued by some of the earlier points you made (literal monster island?). Granted while this Pi character sounds annoying at least it's refreshing to have an Indian lead in a film billed as highly as it is.

As for the pre-review films, I would rather see a full Lincoln review now. Still having to wait in the UK since Oscar season films are released DURING the awards for even greater marketing.

As for Silver Linings Playbook, come on Bob, granted it's not all that originals or mind blowing but the characters are interesting and well played and it's not only great to see De Niro actually ACTING for once in the last couple of years but Chris Tucker (yes THAT one) isn't annoying, actually likeable. You may not care for it but a "piece of shit"? Far from it.

That's what I believe it probably is. I haven't seen it yet, though - it doesn't come out in Sweden until late February. :P

What really sold me on the film was the Spill Crew's review of the film. I trust their opinion far more than I trust Bob's, to be perfectly honest:
http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/silver-linings-playbook-audio-review

[b]EDIT: Also ... "conventionally attractive"? Are you kidding me, Bob? Jennifer Lawrence is fucking gorgeous![/b[

That's the biggest thing I took away from the movie. I thought it was a great film (well mostly the characters and acting, not the story), but I'm still like "Hot damn Jennifer Lawrence is fine as hell!" and I saw it a week ago

Lieju:

Wesley Brannock:
I don't watch movies telling me to be religious due to my own religious views. I won't say what they are on this site for the reason that I feel this isn't the place for it but I will say I won't change my views for some type of " entertainment ".

It can be worth exposing yourself to different views, if just to test your own convictions or to understand the opposition, so you can fight it. (Which is why I sometimes read racist/anti-gay/religious stuff.)

It's not very entertaining, though, if it's smug or just preaching.

But even if a character holds some views, it doesn't mean the work is trying to push those views. More I think about this, the more its message seem anti-religious to me.
At the very least, it's the observation that people prefer a comfortable lie to a gruel truth, which I can agree with.

pearcinator:

Also, Atheists are going to go to town on this...they get more riled up on this stuff than they should. Atheists take the bible more literally than Christians do (well definitely more than I do and I am a Christian). To me the Bible is just a collection of stories about morals (good and bad and all that shit).

But the problem is that a lot of Christians do take their holy book literally. Or claim to. Usually they kinda cherrypick things to support their views and haven't even read the whole book.

I try not to assume all Christians are the same, though.

Without going into what my views are in all honesty no one I know shares my views. Not my family , friends or just the people that I know for other reasons. So in all honesty I don't have to go far if I want to look at other views that aren't mine. While I'm always open to different views the one thing I use ENTERTAINMENT for is a way to escape those views if only for a short time. Everyone uses entertainment for different things I'm not against this. However since I know what I use it for ( without judging what other people use it for ) I can't say that my way of viewing it incorrect. Nor is your way incorrect for you thats your opinion. To end this all I will say is to each is own and leave it at that.

Wesley Brannock:

Without going into what my views are in all honesty no one I know shares my views. Not my family , friends or just the people that I know for other reasons. So in all honesty I don't have to go far if I want to look at other views that aren't mine. While I'm always open to different views the one thing I use ENTERTAINMENT for is a way to escape those views if only for a short time. Everyone uses entertainment for different things I'm not against this. However since I know what I use it for ( without judging what other people use it for ) I can't say that my way of viewing it incorrect. Nor is your way incorrect for you thats your opinion. To end this all I will say is to each is own and leave it at that.

I get that, and it's not like I don't sometimes look for pure fluff or explosions just to entertain, not challenge me in any way. But my point was that I'm not all that sure the book is particularly preachy, but I don't know how the movie handles it.

"That friend" is actually bob .Most of the work he does is pointing out something unknown unimportant and then explaining it .

Dansen:
MovieBob is doing a huge disservice to the movie. The religious message isn't heavy handed at all. The quirkiness complaint was down right retarded. I don't know about you but if I was on ship and their was a huge thunder storm outside, I would want to see it. It also helps the movie because it creates a lighthearted tone that gradually gets torn apart as the movie goes on. I'm not a religious person and I was able to appreciate the movie, I don't know whats going on with Bob, but people should disregard this review or approach it with extreme skepticism, as I've noticed he seems to use these reviews as an excuse to vent.

It reminds me of his Rango review where he said it wasn't worth seeing, later that year it gets the Oscar for best animated picture. :/
Okay MovieBob...

Rango, like Pi, made the cardinal mistake of taking morality/religion seriously. Rattlesnake Jake represented not just the Devil, but Divine Judgment, and tied the story up in a manner understandable to religious people. (Gore Verbinski kind of has a thing for this, see also Pirates of the Carribean 1, 2, and 3.) As a good member of the liberal Cathedral, Bob can't let that stand, but since he has no real understanding of why it appeals to people, he settles for heavy-handed flippancy and overdone sarcasm against minor things: (Isn't this just TOO CUTE! Can you FEEL the WHIMSICALNESS?) No, asshole, I just laughed the first time they explained it and enjoyed the rest of the story.

Fuck your analysis! Cloud Atlas, the great Western entry in this genre and recipient of all the Bob-slobber it deserves, made far less sense, had a far stupider message, and had far less internal coherence than Life of Pi! And Gerard Depardieu played a better, more true-to-life, more convincing, and more realistic racist with just three lines than Hugo Weaving did in all of his over-stuffed, overacted, over-made-up glory!

Indian cinema is better than Western cinema right now for the same reason that Japanese games were better than Western games-Indians and Japanese writers don't consume English-language media, so they go straight to the source material and thus fuck it up less than a Western marketing/HR department/legal firm would. And you know what-the story does make a lot more sense if you actually bother to think about it for five seconds from a Hindu perspective-a vegetarian who believes animals have souls is far more torn up about eating meat and receiving no acknowledgement from a tiger whom he thought he befriended than any Westerner would. That's the true crisis of faith, the rest is secondary.

I believe the first story is more plausible, just because the second story is meant to play on Western Atheist Liberal Whitey's tendency to believe that all racists are cruel murdering animals makes them more likely to believe the RAWR WHERE'S YOUR GOD NOW scenario. But the cook's few lines and Pi's father's response to them-most specifically 'You're a servant! (an atheist devotee of reason slipping into Hindu imprecations against a lower caste! Tell me more!) How dare you talk to me that way!'-would have made an even more interesting philosophical boat discussion, though likely far less filmable.

I'm really disappointed in you MovieBob. I've forgiven your harsh words in previous reviews because they arguably were less than stellar movies aimed at woo'ing the average american teenage out there. So hearing you lengthily discuss how empty the movie was just something to be expected.

Then you arrive and review a genuinely good movie like Life of Pi, which is a perfect (read faithful) adaption from the book itself and you do everything but piss on it and ... oddly enough, your most positive comments is about the visuals, which, usually is more or less what you complain about.

Anyhow, somehow i have to wonder why you bother criticizing/reviewing hollywood-style movies, if you know the first things about these movies is that they are not where "good" movies are made. You want a good movie, with content and compelling story, you look at an independent movie. You want a good entertainment, a place to put your brain off, you go to the theatre, spend 15$ on a ticket, 40$ on popcorn and pop and you watch the latest hollywood blockbuster.

Your biggest statement in pointing out how you do not understand is seeing how you constantly use the word "Quirky" to define Pi. You clearly haven't read the book. If you had, you would understand Pi a lot more. So please, let me give you a primer...

If that wasn't obvious enough from the movie, Pi is a deeply spiritual person, is he fascinated by the origins and evolutions of the religions. He believes in all the gods. In the book, the author spends nearly half the book on india, just establishing the settings of Pi's spirituality. Once in the sea, this spirituality is what drives Pi, or rather, what we see from him.

The end, the spoiler, which you apparently didn't quite get is the reflection of that spirituality that has driven him and ultimately, saved him.

Now what I'm going to say is still a hotly debated things amongst the fans of the book and it is on how to interpret that ending, but here's my take:

The version with the animals, is the spiritual version of the story, its how Pi "lived and felt" it.
The version with the humans is what really happened.

The link between the two relies on your understanding that Pi IS the tiger. During his entire trip he's been fighting himself, fighting to eat, fighting to keep sane, fighting to stay alive. At first, in the early months, Pi is rather himself and self-aware, thus the constant "fighting" with the tiger, his rationality struggling. Then, as his drift continues, he starts relying more and more on his spirituality as its guide to survival, thus him befriending the tiger, they become one, even though barely surviving. The island at the end is really just that, some delirium, he may be unconcsious and drifting, the author just doesn't say.

At the end, on the beach, the tiger leaves, Pi cries. Pi's rationality is clawing his way back up. He survived! he made it! There is hope, his spirituality saved him (The tiger saved him, he says so in the movie), but now he's back on solid ground, he is saved and needs to become again the rational being he's always been.

So it's like that episode of Futurama where Bender gets reprogrammed to like the X-9. "I guess Reality is what you make of it" and all that.

More "fun"... yeah well ain't that just swell. Meanwhile not so long ago when people thought it was more "fun" to believe diseases were caused by demons instead of material things...


Religious people are just silly, unfortunately that silliness has directly and indirectly led to hundreds of millions of people needlessly suffering and dying because it was more "fun" to believe in stupid bullshit instead of the truth.

AxelxGabriel:

It's not cynical to know that some people are just bad, but it is cynical to say that we are all inherently bad and there's nothing we can do about it. Just because the horrible version is more likely, doesn't mean the fantastic version of the story was impossible.

Keep in mind I was trying to meet halfway here, I never said the fantastic version was impossible, just highly improbable, and I also similarly doubt the grim and gritty for grimness's sake version, as I am of the mind that the truth is between what two people tell you, when those two stories come from the same person it's all the more likely.

So maybe miraculous things do happen, but maybe they seem more miraculous because we're missing some crucial piece of information, because there's something ultimately mundane but hard to identify at play we're not aware of, and perhaps someday, when we know enough, all miracles will seem very small indeed...

I was hoping it would be a magical realism...something, kind of like 100 years of solitude. If it's a quirky, "this is why you should believe in god" story, yeah......

I'll probably watch it on DVD.

That whole rant about the main character reminds me of Tarsem Singh so much, that if I watched "Life of Pi", I wouldn't stop picturing the main character actually being Tarsem Singh himself.

And that would ruin the entire experience for me.

Fuck Tarsem Singh.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here