Life of Pi

I am a man of peculiar tastes.  I am more than willing to sit through a horrible B-movie to enjoy a single scene, but there are some talented filmmakers out there that I tend to ignore, for no particular reason.  Ang Lee is a good example of this.  I have liked --- or at least been interested by --- every film of his I have seen to date, but when he puts out a new movie, for some reason I do not make an effort to see it.  I do the same thing with Pixar movies, even though I always end up loving them.  Again, in some ways, I am very odd.  
In fact, the only reason I have seen Life of Pi is because I caught a marathon of this year's Best Picture nominees.  There are not a lot of acclaimed films that I have no desire to see, but I will admit that I wasn't looking forward to this one.  So, how wrong was I?

Life of Pi is the story of a guy telling a story to another guy, who will turn the whole thing into a book.  No...strike that.  While technically true, that is merely the framework of this tale --- and I use "tale" for a reason.  This is the impossible story of Pi (Suraj Sharma).  Pi and his family were traveling by ship to Canada (along with their collection of zoo animals) when a freak storm hit and sank the ship, because God hates Canada.  Pi survives the storm and reaches a lifeboat, but his is not the lone survivor.  A wounded zebra, an orangutan, a hyena, and Richard Parker (a Bengal tiger) all managed to squeeze into the lifeboat with Pi.

It helps that Pi is 2' tall

Not surprisingly, that status quo doesn't last long; the survivors are quickly reduced to Pi and Richard Parker.  Now, all that Pi needs to do is survive on a lifeboat with a hungry tiger in the middle of the ocean, until he can make it to land.  That may sound like the makings of a claustrophobic action spectacular, but the ocean is a really big place.

Judging from this, it might be a while

The acting in Life of Pi is understated.  Irrfan Khan made for a fine narrator, and his impassive descriptions only emphasized the strangeness of what he described.  Rafe Spall does not do much as the writer who is listening to Adult Pi tell his tale, but he provides as three-dimensional of a character as you're going to get with so few lines in the script; it's not tough work, but he plays his part.  The bulk of the work is done by Suraj Sharma, as Pi in the story.  As the only true character in the film, there is a lot depending on Sharma.  He is not outstanding here, but he was likable.

To put it another way, there is an awful lot of this.

It would be easy to compare this shipwrecked character with that of Tom Hanks' in Cast Away, but this is not a character study, it is essentially a fairy tale and that does not typically lead to outstanding acting.  Still, the camera is almost always on Sharma and the film doesn't suffer for it.  The rest of the cast is barely anything more than a few cameos, culminating in "hey, is that Gérard Depardieu?"  Yes, it is.  And then he's gone.

His last words: "Depardon't do it!"

Life of Pi was directed by Ang Lee, and it shows, although not in a flashy way.  That's not really how Ang Lee movies work.  The cinematography is lovely, the acting is understated, the theme has a bit of psychology to it, and the pacing is...well, a little leisurely.  If you are familiar with Lee's work, all of that is to be expected.  The man is nothing, if not consistent in those regards.  I will admit that I was impressed by just how visually impressive this film was.  You might not expect much to excite your senses with a guy on a boat for 2+ hours, but Life of Pi was surprisingly dazzling.

While this isn't the first time Lee has worked extensively with CGI, I thought the animals and the myriad oddities in the script all looked fantastic.  I liked that the film didn't get over-dramatic or strive for an epic feel.  Ang Lee had a clear idea of what tone would work for this story, and he stuck with it.  A less assured director might have tried to force a more pronounced emotional struggle for the main character, but Lee stuck with the book's subtler plot and it paid off.  I also have to credit Lee for his use of 3D in the film.  It's not splashy, exploitative stuff --- the 3D is used to make the unique visuals more spectacular. 

Which is good, because 3D of floating gets old FAST

Having said all that, Life of Pi was pretty good, but I wasn't thrilled by it.  I feel the same way about a lot of Ang Lee's films, so it might just be me; I can appreciate the man's craftsmanship, but I've never really loved anything he's done.  If I had to give a reason for that, it would be the pacing.  As pretty as this movie was, it never excited me because it always felt like I had at least another hour of the movie left.  This is a well-made and polished movie, but I prefer movies with a bit more flair, even if they are more distinctly flawed.

Yes, I accused this movie of having no flair

Speaking of flaws, I noticed some buzz around this movie, concerning its ending.  I wouldn't really call it a "twist" ending, but I can understand some people feeling that it cheapened the story as a whole.

Like a plot where someone starves, but also sometimes has dozens of fish

Any time you can dismiss a movie by saying "It was all complete bullshit," you run that risk.  Personally, I liked the ending.  I thought it salvaged the entire movie.  Until that point, I was impressed by the technical aspects of the film, but did not particularly care about any of the characters.  The ending is what makes it personal, which provides all of the payoff.  For me, that was enough to make me like (but not love) this movie. 

On a side note, how strange is it that Roger Ebert can make absolutely no mention of the ending of Life of Pi in his 4-star review, but he shat a brick about the ending of The Usual Suspects?  They are, essentially, the same plot device, right?

Mesrine: Killer Instinct

Mesrine: Killer Instinct, or L'instinct de mort in its native French, is a film with many names.  Sometimes, it is called Mesrine: Public Enemy Number One (Part One), sometimes it is Mesrine: Part One - Killer Instinct.  Whatever you call it, this is the first entry in a two-part biopic about France's most famous criminal, Jacques Mesrine.  He was a murderer, a bank robber, a kidnapper, a celebrity and a best-selling author.  Not surprisingly, the story of man with so many proverbial hats doesn't fit into only one film.  Killer Instinct was originally released in theaters just four weeks before Mesrine: Public Enemy Number One, which struck me as strange.  Then again, I probably would have gone with the above movie poster to promote the film, instead of this French one:

Why would you put two actors on the poster for a two-film story of one man?

I guess it just goes to show how little I know about French films.

Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel) was not a normal person.  He came from an average French family, with a timid but hard-working father and an overbearing mother.  He fought for France in Algeria.  And yet, he somehow became an international criminal celebrity.  Mesrine: Killer Instinct doesn't try to answer exactly why that happened, but it does put throw out some possible explanations for how it came about.  I don't really like describing the plots for biopics, so here's a quick list of Jacques Mesrine's highlights in Killer Instinct:

• He got his first taste of violence in Algeria
• He quickly graduated to criminal thug after the war
• He chose his criminal buddies over a life of peace and love with family
• He robbed banks
• He kidnapped a millionaire
• He went to prison
• He broke out of prison
• He broke back into prison

The film opens with an arty introduction scene, with several shots being shown in different parts of the screen, all slightly out of sync, a la The Thomas Crown Affair.  Obviously, something is being planned.  We don't have to wait long for it to come to fruition; soon enough, Mesrine (and his girlfriend and her dog) are caught in a hail of gunfire.  Does Mesrine die?  If I was French, I'm sure I would know the answer to that.  But, since there is a second movie, I'll hazard a guess that he survives.  With that as the audience's introduction to the story, there is certainly a feeling of finiteness to Mesrine's tale.  The only question is whether Killer Instinct can suitably lead up to that moment of gunfire while still being the opening chapter in this story.

What makes Mesrine: Killer Instinct worth watching is Vincent Cassel's performance.  He is playing an obviously bad man, but he doesn't fill this character with remorse or some sort of psychosis.  Instead, Cassel treats Mesrine as a man who cannot abide any boundaries, even imagined ones.  When his wife implores him to choose a family life instead of a criminal career, he damn near executes her for trying to fence him in; that scene sheds light on most of Mesrine's important choices --- he will react violently and defiantly whenever he is told not to do something.  This is definitely the best performance I have seen from Cassel to date.

He's winking to acknowledge your jealousy over his awesome 'stache

His supporting cast is stuck with fairly boring characters, but they all do pretty well.  Gilles Lellouche and Gérard Depardieu have some fun as Mesrine's small-time criminal buddies, although I thought Depardieu was surprisingly intimidating for such a jolly-looking fellow. 

I couldn't find a shot of Depardieu laughing at racist jokes, so I went with his second-funniest scene

Roy Dupuis was a little more sinister as Mesrine's more hard-core criminal partner.  Does he deserve to share the movie poster with Cassel?  Definitely not.  Mesrine's anti-establishment attitude obviously made him a dangerous guy to be around, so naturally women found him irresistible.  I liked Elena Anaya as his wife, the one women who isn't portrayed as a pushover or whore in this film.  Cécile De France played a crazy woman just fine, but I wish she would have had more to work with toward the end of the movie.

With the opening scene of the film showing deliberate directorial intent, I assumed that Jean-François Richet's fingerprints would be all over this movie.  They actually aren't.  The film doesn't have a traditional dramatic arc, which is pretty common (sadly) in biopics, but it also feels disjointed, especially as the film jumps forward in time.  I really liked the attitude Richet seemed to take with Mesrine --- there are no rose-colored glasses here, but he isn't portrayed as a monster, either --- but I'm not exactly sure what point he is trying to make.  The action and violent scenes look pretty good, which is not a surprise, coming from the director of the sweet Assault on Precinct 13 remake, but I was surprised at how frequently Mesrine got hurt.  Violent men lead violent lives, but you usually don't see them suffer minor wounds in movies, so that was a nice touch.

A good lead actor and solid direction doesn't necessarily make for a great film, though.  While I liked Cassel, his performance wasn't magnetic enough to overcome an incomplete story.  When you consider that this film is nearly two hours long, this film should have had something definite to say about Mesrine.  Yes, it chronicled his rise to infamy.  That wasn't enough for me.  This felt like a Part One, like a two-hour setup for the next movie.  That's frustrating; while I understand that the two films are meant to be seen as a pair, I was expecting this to stand on its own more.  Will I watch Public Enemy Number One?  It's very likely, and I might be able to look on this a little more favorably when I have seen the full picture.  As it is, this is an interesting start to a fascinating character's tale, but it fails to provide a sense of resolution or even a sense of urgency to see the second part.  It just ends.  And that's not good enough.

La Vie En Rose

I haven't seen all that many French films, but the ones I have seen have tended to be a little odd.  That's not a bad thing, by any means, but it is a trend that I have noticed.  I sat down to watch La Vie En Rose (or La Môme, as it was known in France) with slightly different expectations.  First of all, this is a biopic of famous French singer Edith Piaf.  Biopics tend to be pretty straightforward, which is a blessing and a curse; they tell the tale of someone's life, yes, but they rarely have a compelling dramatic arc.  Second, Marion Cotillard won the Best Actress Oscar for this role, which is a rare feat for an actor in a foreign language film.  Finally, I knew that one of Edith Piaf's songs was used in Inception.  That really has nothing to do with this movie, except I was hoping to identify the song when it inevitably appeared in this film (I missed it).  Oscar-winning biopics usually aren't too weird, but this one...this one is very French.

There's not much use in describing the plot of this film.  It covers Edith's life, from a small child until her death at age 47.  This is not a chronological narrative, though.  The screenplay bounces back and forth, from Edith as a sickly child being raised by prostitutes, to a bona fide success, back to her days as a singing street urchin, over to her final days, and then back to her as a struggling artist. 

"B-A-D-U-P-B-R-I-N-G-I-N-G!  That's right!"

Thanks to the unusual story editing, the audience gets quick glimpses of Edith at key moments in her life before backtracking to explain what led up to that moment and why it is important.  It's an interesting story format, although it seemed a little confusing at times.  If you don't sweat the small stuff (like dates or hard facts), this shouldn't bother you.  Do you need to have knowledge of Piaf's life to appreciate this movie?  It certainly helps, but I understand why a French film wouldn't overstate obvious factual details in a film about a French icon. Piaf's life was certainly unusual, but it's not particularly cinematic.  She spent the last fifth of her life withering away, which certainly explains why director Oliver Dahan opted to not go the traditional chronological biopic route.  Slowly dying isn't usually a recipe for cinematic gold.  Still, La Vie En Rose covers a lot of ground, showing a woman struggling with many recurring issues.

Nobody mentions the funny hair, though.

Here's what you will take away from a viewing of La Vie En Rose: Marion Cotillard is amazing as Edith Piaf.  This isn't one of those Oscar wins or nominations that makes you ask, "Really?  Gwyneth Paltrow?  I've seen more convincing cross-dressers on The Kids in the Hall."  This is an obvious must-win performance.  I am rarely bowled over by a lead actress role (I blame the lack of fun and complex roles for women), but Cotillard was simply astounding, and she does it without singing in the film (which I appreciate).  It's not just that she played her character at different ages, but each age range had a unique, yet connected, performance.  This is an acting tour de force.  See what I did there?  I used a French term to accurately describe her acting; the term translates roughly into "Tour of Force," where Force is probably a French museum.

Jokes about the French language are never funny.

I was a little creeped out by her weird eyebrows and hairline, but there is no denying Cotillard's presence or just how much she disappeared and became almost unrecognizable in the role.  The rest of the supporting cast is capable, but they pale in comparison.  Gerard Depardieu makes an appearance and is as lumpy and French as you remember.

Depardieu, disguised as a lumpy seat cushion to get closer with the ladies.

Emmanuelle Seigner did a fine job as a prostitute with a maternal instinct, but I was a little less impressed with Sylvie Testud's performance as Edith's partner in drunken mischief.  I did really enjoy Marc Barbe as Edith's forceful mentor that may have pined for his star.  In another story, I think Barbe's performance would have deserved critical attention.

As much as I appreciate Cotillard in this film, I can't say that I enjoyed watching the movie.  It was a depressing film --- which is by no means a deal-breaker for me --- that felt about an hour longer than it really was.  Part of this is due to the unconventional editing; without a dramatic arc, there is no anticipation of the ending.  I think Oliver Dahan made the best Piaf biopic he could, but some stories don't have happy endings or compelling climaxes.  There is a lot to like in the movie --- the music was great (although I would have appreciated subtitles), the makeup was an astounding achievement, and the acting was good all around --- but the story itself drained me.  I'm not sure why.  Maybe too much time was spent with Edith as a child?  I'm not sure.

Piaf's father, apparently selling his daughter's hair on the street.

I think my biggest problem is not that this movie is a downer, or that the plot jumps around, but that the screenplay doesn't live up to Cotillard's performance.  The most memorable moments in this film all rely on Cotillard's acting, not the dialogue or the plot.  She dominates this movie so completely that the scenes without her seem like a promise that is never kept; I kept thinking to myself that the scenes with child Edith would help the film come full-circle or impact the most emotional moments in the movie, but they don't.  They exist for background purposes, which is a horrible waste of dramatic potential.

Don't misunderstand me: see this movie and marvel at Marion Cotillard.  I may not have liked the film as a whole, but this is worth watching.