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?

The Amazing Spider-Man

Twenty-three years ago, the modern comic book movie genre was invented with Tim Burton's Batman.  Aside from the Batman franchise, though, not a whole lot good came out of the success of that first film over the next decade.  It wasn't until 2000's X-Men that we started to see that initial promise start to blossom; it wasn 2002's Spider-Man, however, that made the super-hero movie into the Summer juggernaut that it is today.  I will admit that I absolutely love the first Spider-Man.  It was fun, dramatic, campy, and had a great cast.  Not necessarily an all-star cast, but they fit the tone perfectly.  To this day, I can't hear the Lord's Prayer without adding "Finish it!" in a Green Goblin voice.  Spider-Man 2 is a better story with a less ridiculous villain; it is up to your personal tastes as to which movie is preferable.  Spider-Man 3, though, is utter crap.  However bad that last entry was, though --- "laughably bad" is too generous --- only five years have passed since its failure and this series reboot.  Well, let's be honest --- there was going to be a reboot no matter how good the third movie was.  The question remains, how necessary is this movie?


Okay, that's not a bad trailer.  It really grabs that portion of the audience who have always thought "Enough of this Spider-Fellow, what about his parents?" 

I have some bad news for all those audience members who were hooked by the mystery of the Parker Parents.  This movie doesn't answer any of the questions that trailer raises.  Sorry.  Instead, The Amazing Spider-Man introduces us to Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), a slightly nerdy high schooler with a taste for skateboarding and photography.  Peter isn't the coolest kid around, but he's not unpopular, either.  He is, though, very bright.  When Peter accidentally finds a briefcase belonging to his mysterious late father, he uncovers some scientific papers detailing the possibilities of cross-species genetic bonding; in other words, Pete's dad was interested in splicing animal genes with human genes.  Looking into his father's research leads Peter to Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who was Richard Parker's one-armed research partner.  Unfortunately, Peter doesn't introduce himself right away; instead, he sneaks into Connors' research facility and gets bitten by a genetically enhanced spider.  Almost immediately, Peter realizes that he now has super spider-powers.

Including the ability to pick on handicapped jocks

After reading up on (and understanding) his father's research, Peter decides to share part of it with Dr. Connors.  This leads to a typical comic book situation: an otherwise very intelligent person opts to test an experimental treatment on themselves because it is too dangerous for others.

Yeah.  Astonishingly stupid.  I know.

Connors introduces a reptile gene splice to his system and he turns into a giant, intelligent Lizard because, you know, comic books.  Meanwhile, Peter has harnessed his super abilities to become a costumed vigilante.  Why?  Because that's what you do when you're a moody teenager and your actions indirectly lead to your Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) dying.  I believe it was Ben's dying wish that Peter get shot at by the police while wearing spandex.

Note: Uncle Ben never actually liked Peter

While all this is happening, Peter is also getting himself awkwardly entangled in a teenage romance.  The smart, sexy, and apparently allergic to pants Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) finds herself strangely drawn to the ridiculously awkward Peter, especially once his super-powers give him the confidence to be kind of a jerk.

Seriously, no pants, just skirts.  That's not a complaint.

In typical Parker luck, Gwen's dad (Denis Leary) happens to be a Captain on the NYPD and he is handling the case of the costumed vigilante, Spider-Man.  So, to recap: Peter gains super-powers by trespassing, indirectly leads to the death of his uncle, directly leads to Dr. Connors mutating himself, finds a girlfriend, and his girlfriend's dad is hunting down Pete's alter-ego. 

...which isn't hard if you don't wear a mask

The acting in The Amazing Spider-Man is surprisingly good.  I mean, yes, the caliber of actors is very solid here, but the performances are good, given the material.  As far as I can tell, this is the first real starring role for Andrew Garfield, and I really liked his take on Peter Parker.  His awkwardness around Gwen bordered on mild retardation, but aside from that I thought he was believable as A) a teen B) a smart teen and C) a smart teen who would throw on pajamas and fight crime.  Oddly, his best moments as Spider-Man came with his mask off.  And I liked that they didn't bulk Garfield up too much for this part; it was nice to see a lanky Spider-Man, in line with the whole "Puny Parker" lines from the 1960s comics.  Emma Stone definitely impressed me as Spidey's love interest.  It was nice to have a female lead in a superhero movie that wasn't vapid or whiny.  I would have liked to see more of Stone and Garfield together on-screen, because they have good chemistry, but the script kind of forces them into intimacy and that felt rushed.

Tending gaping chest wounds = sexxxy

Rhys Ifans was fine as Dr. Curt Connors.  He wasn't great, but he played up to the script well enough.  Unfortunately, that script didn't make him a particularly effective villain, for reasons I'll detail later.  Martin Sheen and Sally Field played Peter's Uncle Ben and Aunt May, respectively, and they were definitely solid.  I liked Sheen, but was surprised at how unimportant Field felt in the overall plot.  Denis Leary was okay as a hard-line cop, I guess; he was intimidating enough as Gwen's dad, but it's not like his role was all that demanding.  I was genuinely surprised to kind of like Chris Zylka as Pater's bully, Flash.  Zylka wasn't fantastic, but his character actually seemed human and multifaceted, and at least some of the credit belongs to the actor.  That's it for the important performances.  There were a couple of noteworthy/bewildering bit parts, though.  Irrfan Khan played a vaguely sinister henchman to an otherwise absent Norman Osborn, which is fine, but I would have preferred that he actually seemed mean instead of a bureaucratic jerk.  Campbell Scott shows up with Embeth Davidtz as Peter's parents and they don't do very much.  I kept expecting them to do more than look concerned in flashbacks, but no.

I was also waiting for Wesley Snipes to kill Edgar Friendly, but again, no.

This is only director Marc Webb's second feature film, after the too clever but charming 500 Days of Summer.  This is an interesting follow-up, to say the least.  A lot of focus in the advertising campaign for The Amazing Spider-Man was spent on the web-slinging scenes, specifically the point-of-view sequence.  That was justifiable, since those were both pretty cool.  Webb's biggest strength, though, was definitely the character work.  I thought Garfield's performance was very good and the relationships Peter forms in the film, while rushed, still felt genuine. 

In this case, genuine confusion

One of the things that I liked best about this movie was the script.  It wasn't fantastically witty or remarkably paced --- honestly, I think it tried to fit in a few things too many and there were too many cliches --- but I loved the overall feel of it.  In a lot of superhero movies, the hero stands up to the villain because...well, because nobody else can.  Here, it is because Peter feels responsible for the villain.  I also liked the shift toward a more tightly-knit Spider-Man universe (Spideyverse?), with everything appearing to tie into Norman Osborn.  Heck, I even liked the choice to not show Osborn in the film; the Green Goblin is the best Spider-Man villain and deserves to be built up to.  I was happy to see the story keep Peter in high school, because it makes his life that much more complicated.  I liked the little things that made Peter's invention of his web-shooters less improbable, too.

Not likely, but less unlikely

Basically, I liked the idea behind The Amazing Spider-Man.  It is significantly different than Sam Raimi's trilogy and actually deserves to exist and be appreciated.  They could have waited more than five years before rebooting the franchise, but this is still a fun and pleasant surprise.

Having said all that, this is still only my third-favorite Spider-Man movie.  My biggest problem is the villain, Dr. Connors/The Lizard.  Before the transformation, Dr. Connors was a pretty nice character with a very subtle undercurrent of something disturbing or desperate.  That undercurrent never really becomes more pronounced as the film goes on.  That would be fine, expect for the fact that he is the villain of the damn movie.  I didn't like the choice to make the Lizard persona highly intelligent; I honestly would have preferred The Lizard be more of a physical threat that Spider-Man had to outsmart.  I didn't like that The Lizard's evil plan was to transform normal humans into reptile people, which is bad because...um...it leads to sitcoms?

Actually, we don't see much of anything bad happening to the people who are transformed. If we saw reptile-people mindlessly tearing up Queens or serving as The Lizard's loyal army, I could see the threat.  The way it is presented in this movie is as an inconvenience; one minute, people are transforming, the next they are recovering from the transformation and being happy.  The film goes to such great lengths to establish Peter's sense of responsibility, but the personal threat The Lizard poses to him simply is not very compelling.  I also hated his lizard face.  Terrible design.

Bars can only improve The Lizard's appearance

And then there's the action.  While the web-swinging was fun, a lot of the action sequences --- particularly the ones with Peter Parker doing things out of costume --- were not that cool.  They added a little comic relief, sure, but they were oftentimes too over-the-top for my taste (anything with Peter and sports, I'm looking at you).  Another issue that ties into the action sequences is the inconsistent CGI effects.  As good as Spider-Man looked when traveling around the city, I was not very impressed by him in the battle sequences, particularly the final fight.  The scenes aren't bad, but they lacked the essential cool factor that fight scenes need.  I thought the fight scenes paled in comparison to some of the more creative small moments, like the cleverness of Spidey's web in the sewers.  I also saw this in 3D and I can assure you that the 3D is completely useless in this movie, save for the truly awful freeze-frame ending.

So how does Amazing compare to Raimi's Spider-Man?  It's not as good because it doesn't deliver the complete package.  Amazing has a better cast with an overarching story that promises to be better than that of the adjective-less trilogy and a Peter Parker that doesn't feel dated and stereotypical.  But Raimi's movie came out swinging and didn't hold back the best characters for a future installment.  The film, as a whole, is also less fun; I know for a fact that I have quoted Willem Dafoe dozens of times from that first film, but there is no single character that I loved this time around.  Still, The Amazing Spider-Man managed to make me not resent its existence and I enjoyed watching it.  Who knows?  With a proper villain, the next sequel might be the best Spidey film yet.

Oh, if you have any theories who the mystery man in the credits sequence was, leave a comment.  I own a few hundred Spider-Man comics, and even I can't make a convincing argument for any particular character.  What a waste of a teaser scene.