Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Life of Pi (2012)

This is topic Life of Pi (2012) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001915

Posted by Tony Gallimore (Member # 5358) on 11-24-2012, 12:54 PM:

The latest from Ang Lee based on Yann Martel's best seller about the shipwreck and survival of a 16 year old Indian boy whose name is Pi (short for Piscine Patel) as played by Suraj Sharma. The tale begins with Pi and his family having to emigrate from India to Canada along with their livelihood, a zoo full of animals. The ship encounters a storm and all is lost except Pi and some of the animals. As bad as it was losing his family in the shipwreck, Pi must also share his lifeboat with various animals and in particular a royal bengal tiger named Richard Parker. On top of the threat of the tiger, he must survive even more storms, a carnivorous island and various other mishaps as told from the perspective of a years older adult Pi, played by Irrfan Khan. Although filmed in both 2-D and 3-D, I opted for 2-D and believe the eye candy of 3-D would have greatly detracted from the storyline, but then I'm somewhat biased against 3-D in any format. Life of Pi runs a little over two hours, but didn't seem excessive while watching the excellent scenery and unusual storyline. There are several additional humorous storylines, too. Check it out if you have a chance, it was a good fun movie!

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 11-24-2012, 04:54 PM:

The Washington Post had a review in which they said 3-D was the way to see this one. Based on that, I'm planning to actually go to a theater and it'll be my first digital projection experience.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-24-2012, 09:11 PM:

Rick: For the best possible experience, sit closer to the screen than you would for a 2-D movie.

In my theatre my favorite spot to sit has traditionally been about 2/3 back from the screen, which is probably 50 or so feet from the screen. But for 3-D, after experimenting, I find that I like it best in about the 3rd row from the front, which is maybe about 18 or 20 feet from the screen. It makes the 3-D effects look much more immersive in my opinion.

I just think if you sit where the image pretty much fills your glasses' field of vision, the picture will seem brighter and the 3-D will be better. I've given this advice to several of my friends and they all agree with me. (Of course, if you are the type who gets sea-sick from 3-D you probably should sit farther from the screen instead!)

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-25-2012, 02:52 AM:

Unlike Tony, I love 3-D and always see a movie in that format if it was released that way. I am very happy Regal 's Pearl Highland where I saw the movie today is only playing it on one screen and 3-D only. Boo to Consolidated theatres for playing this movie mostly in 2-D with only two 3-D showings in the evenings at all of their theatres except the Ward. The movie is playing in their Titan XC house and only in 3-D.

LIFE OF PI is a very entertaining movie and in good part is due to the 3-D. Yes I agree with the one critic who said "The only way to see this movie is in 3-D". I predict this movie will do very well at the Acedemy Awards next year for best picture, director (Ang Lee), cinematography, visual effects and possibly sound and film editing.

-Claude

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 11-26-2012, 06:32 PM:

CINEMA: Megaplex at Valley Fair, West Valley, UT
AUDITORIUM: 1
PRESENTATION: Mystery Meat Digital 4K (2D), Dolby Atmos sound
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]

RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

This is THE new room to see big releases in. It's a monster of an auditorium with a screen as big or bigger than the new LIEmax screens, leather seats, and Dolby's new Atmos sound. I counted eleven surrounds on each side wall with the front ones angled towards the rear corners. There were two rows of speakers mounted from the ceiling, a couple dozen total. Hearing the rain coming from the ceiling is FREAKY, man.

I'd be interested in knowing what the setup is behind the screen, though, because my initial impression reminded me of AMC's "HITS". It sounded like the speakers were mounted way up high, and possibly no stronger than the surrounds. There is, however, no lack of subwoofer. The sound mix seems to use music in the surrounds more.

Picture was just beautiful.

There's no admission surcharge for this room. Standard $6.25 matinee price.

THE PLOT: A kid survives a ship sinking. Wackiness ensues.

Beautifully shot and soundtracked, this is a solid three-star...maybe even three and one half star...effort up until the end, when it fucks you in the ass and announces you just wasted two hours of your life.

Fuck you, movie.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-26-2012, 10:32 PM:

Wow, that's a review that took an unexpected twist!

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-26-2012, 11:05 PM:

yeah that ending was a kick to the nutsack. As for the 3D it was decent, but not as spectacular as I was expecting - the 3D for 'Rise of the Guardians' was superior to 'Pi' in my opinion.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-28-2012, 04:30 PM:

I sure wish theatrical 3D was brighter...this movie really needs a lot of light. Even in a small room with a 26' screen, it was really dim (and these weren't Sony units, either).

I liked the ending. It leaves it up to the viewer to decide what really happened. I don't consider this a kids movie, but there were a number of families in attendance.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-28-2012, 07:20 AM:

The wonderful and also sad story of (Pi)scine Molitor Patel, named after the Parisian swimming pool that also saw the introduction of the Bikini.

I'm not the biggest fan of Stereoscopic 3D, but I guess this movie is one of the few exceptions, it really draws you into the world.

I've seen this in a dual projector Dolby3D setup on a large screen, smack in the middle of the auditorium. I came to the "somewhat biased" conclusion that this is the only way to see this...

The picture was bright and sharp, the glasses aren't as heavy as those active shutter glasses, ghosting is almost a non-issue and best of all: no silver screen.

The 3D is probably one of the best in a live-action movie since Avatar. It might be a bit gimmicky at times, but it sure is beautiful.

Unbelievably but true, the tiger in the boat is almost entirely CGI and I didn't know this until after the movie.

One of the stranger things is that the aspect ratio of the movie changes for several scenes. This results in letter-boxing for some of those scenes. Personally, I found this rather distracting and quite useless.

There has been quite some discussion about HFR and the soap-opera/video look it seems to produce. Well, there was this outdoor scene at night on this sinking boat that also had this same look going. And mind you, this movie wasn't shot in HFR (and also not on RED cameras).

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-28-2012, 06:11 PM:

quote: Sam Graham
Hearing the rain coming from the ceiling is FREAKY, man.

That's because when you hear rain in real life, you hear it hitting the ground. Think about it. Hearing it from the ceiling would just sound wrong. Unless the scene took place indoors and you heard the rain hitting the roof.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-28-2012, 07:04 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
That's because when you hear rain in real life, you hear it hitting the ground. Think about it. Hearing it from the ceiling would just sound wrong. Unless the scene took place indoors and you heard the rain hitting the roof.

So, what's next? A speaker *under* every seat?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-28-2012, 08:30 PM:

Well if Disney can do it for moving trains on the "Rock'n'Roller Coaster," anything's possible I guess.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 12-28-2012, 09:41 PM:

I saw it today (12-28-12) at the Forest Hills Midway Theatre #1,
in 3D, but forgot to take Mike's advice to sit up close, and sat in the last row as I've been doing for at least five years, for 2D movies. I enjoyed the story, the boy's search for belief versus his father's rationalism, and the few touches of humor, such as the boy's ending the teasing his nickname engendered by teaching each class the meaning of PI, and having the entire class reciting the value of PI to the sixteenth decimal, to the bewilderment and delight of the mathematics teacher.
I also enjoyed the tutorial on lifeboat usage, the way I appreciate Melville's attention to tools in Moby Dick.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-29-2012, 06:57 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Well if Disney can do it for moving trains on the "Rock'n'Roller Coaster," anything's possible I guess.

I've been in the Florida and Paris version several times, but never witnessed any speakers under my feet actually, but maybe I wasn't focused enough [Wink]

Actually, this reminds me of an experimental setup at a multiplex in Krefeld in Germany. They mounted a bunch of big sub-woofers below the wooden floor of one of their auditoriums. I've watched one show there a few years ago and every time something blew up, the floor was vibrating violently.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 12-29-2012, 07:57 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
That's because when you hear rain in real life, you hear it hitting the ground. Think about it. Hearing it from the ceiling would just sound wrong. Unless the scene took place indoors and you heard the rain hitting the roof.

AWESOME point.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-29-2012, 09:02 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I've been in the Florida and Paris version several times, but never witnessed any speakers under my feet actually, but maybe I wasn't focused enough.

Not under your feet, but there are speakers under your butt. There are 120 speakers in each of the 24-passenger "limo" trains.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-29-2012, 09:56 PM:

But in all fairness, Sam, you DID say it was FREAKY! Sound wrong enough for me.

And thanks for the heads up on brightness (lack thereof). I try always to see 3D titles in IMAX. For all the reasons we can flame LIEMAX, the one good thing they do for 3D is they use dual projectors so they produce the brightest 3D you will find. And their screens are bigger than most, which it pretty essential for good 3D. You really don't want to see a box with a moive picture in it sitting in the middle of your vision; you want to get rid of the box and just see the image filling your field of vision -- as Mike sez. Personally, I tend to sit that close for 2D movies as well.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-30-2012, 04:22 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Not under your feet, but there are speakers under your butt. There are 120 speakers in each of the 24-passenger "limo" trains.

Still people regularly "outscream" those [Wink]

quote: Frank Angel
And thanks for the heads up on brightness (lack thereof). I try always to see 3D titles in IMAX. For all the reasons we can flame LIEMAX, the one good thing they do for 3D is they use dual projectors so they produce the brightest 3D you will find.

Still, I prefer dual projector Dolby 3D setups, especially for movies shot in scope (this one was in flat although). LIEMAX still has an awful lot of ghosting and you need to keep your head straight the whole time because of the old-school horizontal/vertical polarization. Excessive ghosting totally destroys the 3D for me. Also, those large silver screens have the tendency to collect any ambient light around.

quote: Frank Angel
You really don't want to see a box with a moive picture in it sitting in the middle of your vision; you want to get rid of the box and just see the image filling your field of vision -- as Mike sez. Personally, I tend to sit that close for 2D movies as well.

Screen size is really not that important at all for me. I want to have the screen fill most of my field of vision and you can achieve that quite easily by sitting at the right position in most well-designed auditoriums. I never understood why so many people want to sit as far back as possible from the screen...

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 12-31-2012, 08:43 PM:

"I never understood why so many people want to sit as far back as possible from the screen..."

For one thing, you are more apt to be on a sight level with the center of the image, so you're not straining your neck looking up or down. And you are above the heads of other rows.
For another, for older people with vision problems, the image seems sharper in focus, and can be viewed in its entirety.
An unconscious memory of always having seen images framed may familiarize the viewer with the screen image, versus immersion in an unfamiliar or threatening environment, thus causing him to opt for seating that preserves the frame. The elderly loose
some peripheral vision as they age, and distance seems to compensate for that loss.
The theatres I patronize are mostly old ones that have been twinned or multiplexed, often awkwardly, sometimes with auditoriums much wider than long. The only satisfying seating position is the last few rows, and the last row fills first. I always go early to choose my seat (my wife agrees) even though
this means sitting through unwelcome advertising commercials.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-31-2012, 09:45 PM:

There is a big difference with 3-D presentation between Consolidated (Reading International) and Regal theatres here in Hawaii. Regal uses RealD and their picture is very nice even with glasses and single projection. Consolidated gives 3-D a very bad reputation with extremely dark image using single projection Dolby 3-D in their standard houses and Expend 3-D in their Titan XC auditorium at the Ward. I always go to Regal for most of my movies but was forced to see a Japanese 3-D movie (HARAKIRI) at Consolidated's Pearlridge a few months ago because they had a exclusive on it and the presentation was dreadfully dark. TOY STORY 3 in 3-D in the Titan House at the Ward was even worse! THE HOBBIT in the RPX house in 3-D and HFR at the Regal Dole Cannery was fantastic and so was almost every 3-D films I saw there and the Regal Pearl Highland 16.
When I see in 3-D movie, I alway try to sit in the centre and half way from the screen and the rear of the auditorium.

-Claude

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-31-2012, 09:45 PM:

I recall being in a Cineplex Odeon in Century City (Southern California) back in the 1990s that had little speakers on every other seat back.

Ridiculous as this will seem, the movie I saw in that cinema was Jodie Foster's "Home for the Holidays." Not exactly a "big sound" movie. But, there it is.

The sound system cannot be named here on Film-Tech -- that should help some of you figure it out.

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-18-2013, 07:45 PM:

Life of Pi - I knew we were in for a treat by how the title cards are placed at different 3D levels. Very tasteful. First time I have seen 3D actually used to enhance the story telling. The relationship between Pi and the tiger is carefully controlled in the 3D depth. It is always thrill to watch a real film artist at work. I have seen a bunch of films in 3D (not by choice) and this was the only one in which I found the 3D an asset.

Posted by Jeff Kane (Member # 6372) on 03-20-2013, 02:12 PM:

quote: Manny Knowles
I recall being in a Cineplex Odeon in Century City (Southern California) back in the 1990s that had little speakers on every other seat back.

Ridiculous as this will seem, the movie I saw in that cinema was Jodie Foster's "Home for the Holidays." Not exactly a "big sound" movie. But, there it is.

The sound system cannot be named here on Film-Tech -- that should help some of you figure it out.

Would that be a very powerful sound system? Say, 4000 HorsePowerS?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-21-2013, 07:03 PM:

quote: Jeff Kane
Would that be a very powerful sound system? Say, 4000 HorsePowerS?

I doubt that the Voldemort 4000 Sound System ever featured speakers attached to the back of the seats.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 04-01-2013, 04:11 PM:

Would have been much more satisfying with out the psycho analysis at the end. The final scene on the beach would have been the perfect ending.